Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

PETITION (CYCLE INDUSTRY)

Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to present a petition from more than 2,500 workers in the Birmingham cycle industry calling attention to the dangers of mass unemployment and the crisis which exists in the cycle industry. The prayer of the petition is as follows:
We, your petitioners, humbly pray Her Majesty's Government to give full consideration to several points which we consider to be detriments to full employment. The points which we draw attention to are these: the Butler imports Acts, the removal of Purchase Tax from cycles, the modification of the hire purchase terms, and the removal of all trade barriers that exist to the detriment of full employment, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Oldham

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that canteen employees working in textile mills in Oldham are entitled only to one week's holiday with pay and that in cases where the mill closes down for two weeks' holiday, these employees have been refused unemployment benefit for the second week; and what steps he proposes to take.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The wages and paid holidays of these workers are governed by orders made to give effect to proposals of the Industrial and Staff Canteen Undertakings Wages Board set up under the Catering Wages Act, 1943. Hitherto the orders in question have provided for up to a week's annual holiday with pay, but the current order, which came into force in October last, provides for annual holidays with pay of up to two weeks. The question of entitlement to unemployment benefit is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance, but from what I have said the hon. Member will see that the problem he has in mind will not recur during the coming holiday season.

Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged for the information, but what about last year when this industry was hit and, in point of fact, these people were bilked out of a week's unemployment pay?

Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid it will not be possible to make it retrospective. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] At least we have solved it for the coming year.

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Labour to state the figures of total unemployment in the Oldham employment exchange area; and the figures of those temporarily stopped and working part-time for the days of count in October, November and December, 1952, and in January, 1953.

Mr. Watkinson: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: Would the hon. Member tell us what was the figure for adult male unemployment in Oldham in January last?

Mr. Watkinson: I take it the hon. Member means January of this year, or does he mean January of last year?

Mr. Hale: "January last" and "January this year" are completely identical.

Mr. Watkinson: The figure for 12th January, 1953, of wholly unemployed is 1.102.

The following is the reply:

NUMBERS OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT THE OLDHAM EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICE AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES


Date
Wholly Unemployed
Temporarily Stopped
Total


13th October, 1952
998
2,713
3,711


10th November, 1952
1,084
2,101
3,185


8th December, 1952
1,023
1,416
2,439


12th January, 1953
1,102
1,095
2,197


The "temporarily stopped" include persons working short time who were not at work on the dates in question and were registering at the employment exchange. Persons working short-time who were at work on these dates but stood off on other days of the week are excluded and the number of such persons is not known.

Austin Motor Company (Discharges)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 800 men dismissed as redundant in the late summer of 1952 by the Austin Motor Company were afterwards found re-employment by his Department in the same company and in other firms, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: Of the 775 workers discharged by the Austin Motor Company last summer, about 400 were re-engaged by the firm and 140 found alternative employment through the exchanges. The remainder were mostly elderly workers due for retirement, and very few of them are now registered as unemployed.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister aware that a dispute was narrowly avoided at

this factory because of the way the management handled this matter, and, since there is likely to be some seasonal fluctuation, will the hon. Gentleman consider consulting with the management of such firms to prevent high-handed hiring and firing actions of this kind in the future, which leads under modern conditions to a bad spirit among the workers?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure the hon. Member would like to know that my regional office has been in close touch with the Austin Motor Company and with the British Motor Corporation as a whole, and, as far as the redundancy dealt with in the Question is concerned, there are now only 20 men registered as unemployed.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would the hon. Gentleman give the House some clearer indication of what he means by elderly workers? Is he aware that a very large number of people over 50 in all parts of the country are unable to get employment, and that this is a most distressing problem, particularly when they are fit for a full day's useful work?

Mr. Watkinson: I heartily agree, but that point arises on a later Question.

Pottery Industry

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of employees wanted by the pottery industry; and the numbers for each principal type of operation that are required;
(2) what action he is taking to recruit the employees required by the pottery industry.

Mr. Watkinson: On 24th January, the number of workers for whom vacancies had been notified was 1,284, including 328 ware makers and 690 decorators. During the last three months 1,562 workers, including 361 ware makers and 339 decorators were placed in the industry and the employment exchanges will continue to submit others as they become available.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister. in particular, and the Government, in general, still consider this industry a very important industry for export and home needs, and, if so, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that the industry should be given priority; and can he say what action is being taken to satisfy the needs of the industry?

Mr. Watkinson: I thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter to our attention. It is an example of the sort of ups and downs we suffer in this very critical economic climate, and the difficulty is, as he no doubt knows, the problem of training skilled women on the decorating side, but we shall do what we can to meet the needs of the industry.

Brighton

Mr. H. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take to alleviate unemployment in Brighton now that there are 4,359 persons unemployed in Brighton.

Mr. Watkinson: The Board of Trade and my Department, in association with the local authority, have made every effort to encourage fresh industry in Brighton. There has been some success and we shall continue to do what we can to assist. As is to be expected in a holiday resort, much of the unemployment is seasonal.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the average unemployment in Brighton is six times higher than the national average, and would he, therefore, consider accelerating amendments to the Catering Wages Regulations so that hotel proprietors can maintain some of their staff throughout the year, instead of sacking them in the off season? Will he also consult with the Minister of Supply to see whether some orders for light engineering cannot be directed to Brighton? As the census of unemployment is so high in Brighton, will he give the same sense of urgency to unemployment in Brighton as he has done to the textile industry in Lancashire?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the first thing is to get the facts right. The present rate of unemployment in Brighton is just over 4½ per cent. That is very serious, and I do not deny it, but it is not six times the national average. What we are trying to do to meet the case is to build up the Hollingbury Estate. Two more factories there are under construction which will employ some 250 workers, and three other projects have been approved but the work has not yet been started, so we are trying to meet this very difficult need.

Stornoway

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployment in the Stornoway area and the numbers of unemployed in each category at the latest count.

Mr. Watkinson: At 12th January the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Stornoway employment exchange were 1,426 men, 74 boys under 18, 270 women and 63 girls under 18. The total of 1,833 represented about 36 per cent. of the estimated total number of employees in the area

Mr. MacMillan: It is hardly necessary to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary regards this as a very serious state of affairs, since I have already raised this matter on the Adjournment and in Questions to the Minister. Can he say whether any special measures are going to be taken as a matter of urgency in this very serious case?

Mr. Watkinson: I entirely agree with the hon. Member in saying that this is a most urgent and tragic situation for the people concerned. I do not deny that. The hon. Member has asked Questions of almost every Government Department. All I can tell him is that we are working together to do our best to meet this very difficult situation, but he knows the local problems and difficulties as well as I do.

Mr. John MacLeod: Has the Minister studied the Cairncross Report, and does not he think that the actions advised there should be followed?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, we are doing so.

Merseyside Development Area

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers registered as unemployed in the Merseyside Development Area in October, 1951, October, 1952. and January, 1953, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: 16,729 at 15th October, 1951, 25,760 at 13th October, 1952, and 28,011 at 12th January, 1953.

Mr. Wilson: Since unemployment has almost doubled over the period covered by this Question, will the hon. Gentleman, recognising that this is spread over a wide range of industry, say what the Government intend to do now to resume the direction of new industries to Merseyside?

Mr. Watkinson: I should be glad to do so. I think that the important thing is to get the facts right. The facts are that there were 28,000 people unemployed in this area in February, 1950. Since 1948, there has been an increase of 14,000 in the working population, and we hope in 1953 to provide new jobs for six to seven thousand people.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister say how much of that improvement is since 1950 and how many of these six to seven thousand new jobs have been created as a result of factories established by the Labour Government?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not deny that for a moment. I think and hope that the right hon. Gentleman is as delighted as I am that this has helped, because I myself never thought that this problem of finding jobs for people who need them was essentially a party political matter.

Dock Workers, Merseyside

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour the average number of dock workers signing on in Merseyside docks for whom no work was available at the latest available date.

Mr. Watkinson: In the week ending 31st January the average daily number of registered dock workers surplus to requirements in the Merseyside ports was 4,168.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the steady and persistent refusal of the Conservative administration in Liverpool to agree to the scheduling of this area as a Development Area, which eventually had to be done over their heads, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he expects now any improvement in the dock employment situation on Merseyside, or must those who are discharged from dock employment take their turn in the queue for these new factories?

Mr. Watkinson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, because he has previously asked a Question on this matter, last November the figures were much worse. At that time, they were 5,610 or 26.2 per cent. of the register. I am glad to say that they have now fallen to 19.9 per cent. of the register, and while we hope they will go lower still, at least we can say that the position has improved.

Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the Brixton employment exchange in January, 1952 and 1953, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: 1,589 at 14th January, 1952, and 2,594 at 12th January, 1953.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: These are deplorable figures. Will the Minister explain how it is that there is this very substantial increase, in the neighbourhood of 66 per cent., compared with the figure for last year, whereas the average increase over the whole of the London and South-Eastern region is in the neighbourhood of only 30 per cent.? How does he account for this situation? What action is he going to take to cope with it?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps we might again at least gets the facts right. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the increase is a very large and worrying one, but it is not quite so black when one looks at the actual figures and finds that the reasons are largely seasonal. The three trades worst affected are the catering and hotels trade, the distributive trades and the building and civil engineering trades, and those may improve later in the year.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this upward trend in underemployment and unemployment in so many areas suggests that there is something wrong with the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. What I think it suggests, and the way we look at it, is that we are moving into a period of intense foreign competition. I hope we shall face up to it successfully.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this subject on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING INDEX

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in the year 1952, the price of butter and haricot beans rose by 45–50 per cent., sago 45 per cent., crockery 50–75 per cent., kitchen equipment 10–20 per cent.; and if he will


accordingly revise his figure of the cost of living to take into account these rises and those mentioned in the list of 97 items submitted to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North.

Mr. Watkinson: Without accepting the hon. Member's figures, I am aware that some prices rose during 1952 while other prices fell. The Interim Index of Retail Prices is based on widespread inquiries regarding the price changes for a large and thoroughly representative sample of the goods and services entering into the expenditure of working-class households. The Cost of Living Advisory Committee recently undertook a thorough review of the working of the index since it started in 1947, and certain revisions were made to the index in January, 1952.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the figures I have quoted were supplied by the catering employers and have been accepted by the Catering Employers' Association? Is he further aware of the fact that over 100 items have risen in percentages varying from five to 100, and can he say whether or not these 100 items are included in the figures he has mentioned?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and I thank the hon. Member for sending me a very interesting document, but the point is this: the interim index was carefully constructed to provide a fair and sound basis on which the wages of some 2 million workpeople could be based. I do not think that I can do better than quote the conclusions of the report on the working of the interim index which says, in reference to the present index:
We think that there are no grounds for the belief that the all-items index figure at present either under-states or over-states the rise in the level of retail prices since June, 1947.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (CALL-UP)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if, in his review of the operation of the National Service Acts, he will take into account the fact that farmers are finding it impossible to carry out the programme of food production owing to the call-up of agricultural workers.

Mr. Watkinson: While I do not agree that the position is as stated by the hon. Member, the effect of the call-up of some

agricultural workers on home food production is always borne in mind. The man-power needs of the Forces must. however, also be taken into account. The numbers called up will be further reduced to perhaps some 6,000 per age group, by the two adjustments announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 2nd February, that is the discontinuance of the call-up of agricultural workers placed in Medical Grade III and the introduction of a greater measure of flexibility in dealing with stockmen.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fanners continue to find the answers which he gives very unsatisfactory and that they still ask how they can increase food production when labour is steadily decreasing? The men go into the Army, and the trouble is that they never come back.

Mr. Watkinson: As to the last part of the supplementary question, it would be rather unwise at the moment to assume that the men will not come back because the first groups are not due to be released until the end of this year. It would be unfair to assume that all of them will not be very delighted to come back to agriculture. As to the general figure, we are calling up only about 1 per cent. of the total number of whole-time male workers in the industry, and by recent adjustments we have reduced the total number over the whole country from 8,000 to 6,000, which makes quite a difference.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

East Kilbride Development Corporation

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state the number of dwellings completed by the East Kilbride Development Corporation in the 10 months since 31st March. 1952.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Three hundred and twenty-three.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figure represents the completion of about 60 per cent. of the housing programme of the Development Corporation in 80 per cent. of the time


allotted for it? Is he also aware that that is matched by a decline of approximately 15 per cent. in the number of labouring workers employed by the Corporation? Does he consider that a satisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Stuart: I can only say that the rate of building at the present time is somewhere in the region of 60 to 70 houses per month, or about 800 a year, and about 500 will be completed in the financial year 1952–53.

Brick Supplies

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 11 million bricks were imported from Belgium in 1952; and, since the price of these bricks adds £130 to the cost of a house, what action he proposes to take to ensure adequate supplies of local bricks for the Scottish housing programme.

Mr. J. Stuart: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and I have already taken steps both to increase the production of bricks and to secure economies in their use.

Mr. McInnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House precisely what steps have been taken? Is he aware that if he makes an investigation into the position in Scotland he will find many brickfields and brickworks which were declared redundant at the beginning of the war because of the stupid policy of rationalisation and cannot he do something to have them put back into production?

Mr. Stuart: I am glad to say that the imports amount to less than 2 per cent. of Scottish production. Production rose by 12 per cent. last year compared with 1951, and in 1953 it should be higher. We are also improving on economies in the use of scarce materials, such as bricks, and by these various measures I trust that the situation will improve.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of encouraging the increased use of stone as a substitute for brick as an assistance to an industry which is rapidly dying out in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: I have previously answered Questions my hon. Friend has asked on

this point. I, personally, would welcome the use of stone where cost, and so on, permits.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most serious aspect of this question is the added on-cost of £135 to the building of the house; and as we are all concerned to get houses built at a cheaper rate, is it not extraordinary that during the campaign for cheapness steps are being taken by his Department which actually increase the cost of the house, and which builders cannot cope with in their attempt to get a cheaper house?

Mr. Stuart: I have tried to explain that the steps we are taking are in the opposite direction, towards using fewer foreign imported bricks, thereby reducing the cost of the house, not only in that way but also by using fewer bricks.

Agricultural Population (Private Building)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to take steps to extend grants available for the erection of private houses to cover new houses built by crofters or by other private individuals, subject to the approval of the local authorities and his Department.

Mr. J. Stuart: Grants are already available under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, for houses for crofters in the Highlands and Islands who are landholders or cottars in terms of the Small Landholders Acts, and under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1952, for houses for members of the agricultural population generally.

Mr. Grimond: While I appreciate what has been done, I also appreciate that private house building assistance is open to difficulties and needs to be under some control. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are still many people who could build a good and cheap house for themselves if they could get assistance, which they cannot get under the present law?

Mr. Stuart: I understand the point, but at present no subsidy or grant is paid for houses built for owner occupation. It could not be done without legislation.

Mechanical Aids

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure a greater measure of mechanisation in the building of municipal housing in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and I take every opportunity of reminding the industry and local authorities by way of demonstration and otherwise of the importance of mechanical aids. Many large contractors for local authority houses make considerable use of these aids

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that even at the present rate of progress it will take nearly a quarter of a century before the housing problem in Scotland is reasonably solved? Can he not speed up the process of mechanising the building industry?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon Gentleman that we are doing all we can to speed up the matter and that we fully realise the importance of mechanisation. I think we are progressing.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Meals

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local education authorities now grant partial remissions in charging for school meals; and which local authorities do not make such remissions.

Mr. J. Stuart: Twenty-one. With permission, I will circulate the names of the others in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those who do not make remissions are Tory-controlled local authorities—all of them are, very likely—and how can he carry out the undertaking to prevent hardship being suffered by children as the result of the recently announced increase in school meal prices if those authorities do not undertake a policy of remission?

Mr. Stuart: The fact that they do not undertake a policy of partial remission does not mean that they do not give total remission in necessitous cases. Authorities who have no arrangement for partial

remission have been asked to submit them.
Following is the information:


Names of Education Authorities not granting partial remissions


Bute.
Perth and Kinross.


Clackmannan.
Renfrew.


Dumfries.
Ross and Cromarty.


Dunbarton.
Roxburgh.


East Lothian.
Stirling.


Inverness.
West Lothian.


Peebles.
Dundee.

Temporary Civil Servants (Redundancy)

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many temporary civil servants are at present declared redundant in Government Departments in Edinburgh; and how many in the temporary category have been dismissed in the past 12 months from these Departments

Mr. J. Stuart: I can, of course, only speak for the Departments for which I am responsible. In these, the figures required are 57 and 169.

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why temporary civil servants are being declared redundant and subsequently dismissed from certain Government Departments in Edinburgh while, at the same time, more highly-paid established civil servants are being asked to volunteer to work overtime for the purpose of undertaking the work of the personnel who are being declared redundant.

Mr. J. Stuart: In one of my Departments, established staff recently worked a small amount of overtime beyond normal departmental hours for a special purpose bearing on work being done largely by temporary staff. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that overtime of this kind is not being incurred by established staff for the specific purpose of taking over work from temporary staff. In the case mentioned, the overtime involved was the equivalent of two clerks for two weeks.

Mr. Pryde: Is it a fact that 34 highly-paid machine operators were transferred from one Department to another to do work which was formerly done by 15 temporary civil servants of comparable service?

Mr. Stuart: That is a different question, but I believe the hon. Member is correct and that for a temporary period a number such as he has mentioned were transferred to do a certain job of work.

Educational Economies

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total value of economies proposed by local education authorities in the past year; what this amount is expressed as a percentage of total expenditure on education; and whether he is satisfied with the results of the economy campaign.

Mr. J. Stuart: The economies proposed by education authorities for their financial year 1952–53 amount to about £290,000, which represents approximately 0.7 per cent. of their estimated expenditure. I regard these proposals for the current year as acceptable, but the need for economy will continue, as the authorities, I am sure, recognise; and their estimates for next year should be framed and will be examined with this in view.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not that figure show how near to the bone local education authorities are working? Do not that figure and the fact that new school buildings last year amounted to £2 million less than in 1951, taken together, represent an outrageous attack on the educational system, for which the right hon. Gentleman is being attacked by the Tory Press in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: The figure of 0.7 is not a very vicious attack. We shall do our best to maintain an efficient service.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into some of these economies, for they seem to be false? For instance, it is no economy, in Edinburgh or elsewhere, to have painters wandering the streets, idle, in winter-time and schools not being painted, because what is saved on education is lost at the employment exchange.

Mr. Stuart: I certainly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Points such as that require careful investigation.

Forestry (Amenity Planting)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to take steps to amend the remit of the

Forestry Commission in Scotland so that it can undertake amenity planting as it can in England.

Mr. J. Stuart: The statutory powers of the Commission are the same in Scotland as in England. In the planting and development of all their forests the Commission pay due regard to amenity considerations.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in relation to the Forestry Commission, the value of amenity planting, particularly for the tourist industry and particularly for the future?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Forestry Commission will hardly look at any plans for afforestation involving less than 300 acres and completely neglect the whole problem of shelter belts and amenity planting? Can he do something about it?

Mr. Stuart: I should not say that the Forestry Commission ignore the whole problem of shelter belts; I have seen some planted by the Commission. I should welcome anything in the way of amenity planting.

River Clyde (Flooding)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about increased flooding of the River Clyde in recent years; and what measures he is prepared to take to protect agricultural land affected by it.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have received no representations in recent years about increased flooding on the River Clyde. I am, however, concerned about the land drainage problems presented by periodic flooding in the Hamilton-Motherwell areas and in other parts of Scotland, and I am discussing with the interests concerned the lines of possible amending legislation to enable such problems to be dealt with.

Mr. Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider instituting a survey to establish the facts about flooding in the Clyde, particularly as valuable horticultural land has been subject to inundation in recent years and caused the loss of money and the waste of good food-producing possibilities?

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly consider it. A preliminary survey is being carried out, but not a full survey.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As these discussions have been going on for a long time now, can my right hon. Friend say what is holding them up?

Mr. Stuart: They are very complicated matters, and it will require legislation to implement the decisions.

Ploughing Subsidy Claims, Aberdeenshire

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments for ploughing subsidy are still outstanding in Aberdeenshire; and the reason for the delay.

Mr. J. Stuart: Outstanding claims from Aberdeenshire number 31, out of a total of over 5,500. These are cases in which further information and inquiry are necessary.

Mr. Spence: Is the total of 5,500 for the whole of Scotland or for Aberdeenshire?

Mr. Stuart: I am referring to Aberdeenshire.

Health Services (Efficiency)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the public concern in Ayrshire in regard to the efficiency of the National Health Service, with particular reference to the shortage of trained medical and surgical consultants.

Mr. J. Stuart: If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of any deficiencies that have been brought to his notice, I shall be glad to consider them.

Sir T. Moore: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's suggestion, might I ask whether he is not aware that there has been a disturbing number of resignations lately, especially amongst consultants; and is he satisfied that the West of Scotland Regional Board is adequately and effectively dealing with this unsatisfactory situation?

Mr. Stuart: I am assured that the Regional Board are taking proper steps to replace those who have resigned.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the West of Scotland, and in Ayrshire in particular, since the inauguration of the National Health Service we have had a better full-time consultant service than we ever had previously, and that there were more part-time people; and that the doctors generally, the general practitioners, have expressed to me personally their satisfaction at the better service now available since the National Health Service was started?

Scottish Economic Conference

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Economic Conference last met; how often it has met under his chairmanship; and when it is to meet again.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Scottish Economic Conference last met on 12th May, 1950, under the Chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). No matters for discussion at the Conference have since been suggested by its constituent members, and I see no occasion at present for calling a further Conference.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of what is obviously his own attitude towards it, as well as that of his predecessor, that it is high time we wound up this thing once and for all and forgot about it?

Mr. Stuart: I will look into that.

Herring Fishing Industry, Western Isles

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to restore the herring fishing this year in the Islands of Barra and Eriskay; and whether it has yet been decided to establish a herring processing plant at Castlebay.

Mr. J. Stuart: Repeated efforts since the war have failed to locate any large shoals of summer herring off Barra; in autumn and winter most of the herring from the Barra grounds are landed at mainland ports where there is access to the home market. The Herring Industry Board do not consider the landings likely to be made at Castlebay would justify the provision of herring processing plant.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there were a processing plant at Barra it would not be necessary for the fishermen to make these uneconomic journeys to the mainland to sell their fish; and will he not get in touch with the Herring Industry Board to consider having plant on an appropriate scale to what herring there is?

Mr. Stuart: I agree that landing on the mainland does add to their journey, but, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, it would only be a sound proposition to build a plant if we knew that a sufficient number of herring would be landed.

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Castlebay herring cures into an article of a succulence and delicacy of taste without equal in the world, for which there is a tremendous demand in the United States of America; and will he ask the Herring Industry Board to pay special attention to this, because we get, and rightly get, far higher prices for these herring than for any others?

Storm Damage

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a comprehensive statement of the damage done by the recent great storm in the North-East of Scotland to life, limb and property on shore and at sea.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to give a comprehensive account of the damage done to persons, property and boats in Scotland as a result of the recent storms; and what steps have been taken, and are to be taken, to give succour and eventual rehabilitation to the sufferers.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a further statement as to the extent, and the effects, of the recent gale damage to Scottish forests.

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to arrange for equipment and financial assistance to clear and store the vast numbers of trees felled by the hurricane of 31st January in Scottish forests.

Mr. J. Stuart: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement at the end of Questions in reply to these Questions.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that steps should urgently be taken to deal with this problem of fallen timber—

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might wait till he gets the answer at the end of Questions.

Electricity (Breadalbane Project)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated load factor of the hydro-electric works embodied in the Breadalbane project No. 25 Constructional Scheme, capacity installed 88.5 megawatts, referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 25) Confirmation Order, 1953; and the anticipated coal economy equivalent based on that load factor and a conversion rate of 1.31 lb. of coal per unit of electricity generated, generally in accord with the average conversion rate of British Electricity Authority power stations in 1952.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that the expected load factor of hydroelectric works embodied in the Breadalbane project will be approximately 40 per cent.; and that the expected saving in coal at a conversion figure of 1.31 lb. per unit of electricity generated will be about 180,000 tons annually.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost, £/per megawatt installed, respectively, including and excluding capital costs in respect of distribution facilities, for the 88.5 megawatts installed capacity of the hydroelectric works embodied in the Breadalbane project No. 25 Constructional Scheme, referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 25) Confirmation Order, 1953.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the Hydro-Electric Board that the estimated capital cost per megawatt to be installed is about £170,000, or if the cost of transmitting the power to the Board's grid is added about £180,000.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated dates of commencement and completion for the hydro-electrc works embodied in the Breadalbane project No. 25 Constructional Scheme referred to in the North of


Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No.25) Confirmation Order, 1953; and the aggregate consumption of cement, bricks, steel, cast-iron, and timber for all the works described in the Explanatory Memorandum, Command Paper No. 8740.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the Board that they hope to start construction of the Scheme this year, and to produce electricity from it in about four years' time. The Scheme should be substantially completed in five to seven years' time. The Board estimate that the Scheme will require 120,000 tons of cement, 12,000 tons of steel and 800 standards of timber. Use of bricks and cast-iron will be negligible.

Shortage of Teachers (Consultations)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland with which representative bodies he proposes to have discussions about the shortage of teachers; and when these discussions will commence.

Mr. J. Stuart: It is proposed to have consultations with the associations of local authoritles, the National Committee for the Training of Teachers and the Educational Institute of Scotland. I hope that these consultations will take place in the near future.

Mr. MacPherson: While I hope that these discussions will bear some fruit, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that the question at issue is something which cannot be settled by discussion amongst the interested parties; and is he not aware that what is really in issue is the use to which one of our scarcest economic assets, namely, educated manpower, is being put, and should not he be discussing it in the Cabinet instead of with interested parties?

Mr. Stuart: The question of changes in the superannuation scheme has, of course, been discussed elsewhere before agreement was reached, and I think that now the right step is to have proper consultations with the teachers' organisations.

Sir T. Moore: As a matter of interest, could my right hon. Friend say for how long this shortage has prevailed?

Mr. Stuart: Not without notice.

St. Mary's School, Bishopbriggs

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to withdraw the certificate from St. Mary's Girls' School, Bishopbriggs, in view of the fact that this is the only intermediate approved school for girls in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. I am satisfied that Roman Catholic girls of the age-range covered by this approved school can be adequately provided for elsewhere.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone who knows anything at all about this social problem will deprecate strongly his decision, which means that girls of this intermediate age group will be housed in the same building as girls of the senior age group? Is he not aware that this will merely aggravate a grave social problem?

Mr. Stuart: I fully understand the hon. Lady's anxiety on this matter. We have corresponded and, as she knows, a new school at Bishopton which will accommodate 40 girls will be opened this year. The school to which the hon. Lady refers, St. Mary's School, is in a very bad state of repair and a lot of money would be needed to repair it. I can assure the hon. Lady that this closure is not immediate, and I give an undertaking that it will be reviewed before the actual decision to close it is taken.

Miss Herbison: Before the decision is taken, and indeed when the review is being undertaken, will the Secretary of State keep very much in his mind the grave social problems that are entailed in this question? Will he also consider, if the present building is not suitable, what chances there are of finding another building which will be separate from that of the senior pupils?

Mr. Stuart: I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion.

Demonstration Crofts

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many experimental crofts are being run with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture; where they are situated; and what further steps he proposes to give technical assistance and practical demonstrations of new methods to crofters.

Mr. J. Stuart: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to demonstration crofts, of which there are six functioning at present. Three are situated in Skye, two in Sutherland and one in South Uist. The crofts are being operated by selected crofters under the guidance of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture and from funds provided by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I hope that during the next financial year it may be possible to establish in addition a pig and poultry demonstration unit and to strengthen the advisory staffs of the North of Scotland and West of Scotland agricultural colleges in the crofting areas.

Mr. Grimond: Would the Secretary of State see whether he can establish such a croft in the Shetlands? Will he bear in mind that if these crofts are run under true crofting conditions they are extremely valuable for the improvement of crofting throughout the Islands?

Mr. Stuart: I should be glad to see one established in the Shetlands. It might be useful, and I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind when we can go further in this matter.

Population, Crofter Counties

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the population of the crofter counties in 1870, 1900, 1930, 1939, 1945 and 1952; and what he estimates it will be in 15 years.

Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

(1) The population of the crofter counties at the following periods was:


1871
372,290


1901
352,371


1931
293,212


1939
287,000 (estimated)


1945
300,000 (estimated)


1952
284,000 (estimated)


Notes.—(a) No estimate is available for 1870. The census figure for 1871 is therefore given.


(b) The census figures for 1901 and 1931 are also given as they are more accurate than the estimates available for the two previous years.

(2) No reliable estimate can be made of the probable population in 15 years' time.

Highland Development

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in order to maintain the employment position in the Highlands when the hydroelectricity schemes are completed, once merchandise timber is available, if he will take steps to encourage saw millers and processers of wood to establish themselves in the area by private enterprise, or by amending the terms of reference of the Forestry Commission in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: The programme of Highland development envisages an increase in the sawmilling and woodworking industries when the forestry programme comes into full effect, but at present the production from Highland forests is largely in pitwood and thinnings. The Government will do everything possible to encourage private firms to establish themselves in the area. The Forestry Commission have already powers to establish and carry on woodland industries, and no amendment to these powers is therefore necessary.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that some of the timber of the Forestry Commission in the Highlands is already maturing and therefore there is need for haste in these matters if we are not to see the present timber being grown in the Highlands sent South?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure my noble Friend that the Forestry Commission are alive to this position and that they have plans under consideration.

Slaughterhouses (Siting)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the committee which he has set up to study the siting of slaughterhouses is empowered to consider the more general questions of slaughter and marketing.

Mr. J. Stuart: The committee which I am setting up will be empowered to review generally the siting of slaughterhouses and facilities they should provide. It will not be concerned with marketing policy.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole question of the siting of slaughterhouses is of very great importance in Scotland and that


a great deal of preliminary work will have to be done before any new scheme can be brought in? Will he give as much advance information as he can to the farmers concerned so that they have a chance to work things out in advance?

Mr. Stuart: At the moment there is no intention of altering the functions and duties of the Ministry of Food. A change in the marketing system would arise only when controls could be done away with.

Mr. Hastings: When considering his plans, will the Secretary of State give special attention to seeing that in slaughtering there is no unnecessary cruelty to the animals concerned?

Mr. Stuart: Certainly, Sir.

Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken by his Department to implement the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, in the counties of Midlothian and Peebles.

Mr. J. Stuart: Orders will be made shortly establishing river purification boards for the Lothians and Tweed areas. These Orders will cover the whole of the counties of Midlothian and Peebles.

Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Midlothian and Peebles that the situation has become a great deal worse during this year?

Mr. Stuart: The Orders to which I have referred will be made before the end of this month. We are trying to make progress.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that some of the very small burghs may be hard hit by this, and required to produce sewage schemes far beyond their financial capacity? Will he bear this aspect in mind?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir, it will be borne in mind.

Mr. Pryde: May I ask the Minister if he remembers that, when we discussed that Act, one of the Scottish Ministers and myself expressed this point of view and

that we did not get the backing of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby)?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered a review of the National Service Acts, particularly with a view to a reduction in the period of service.

Mr. Yates: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the National Service Act comes to an end during 1953; and if he will take steps to review the obligation of, and the need for, compulsory National Service, with a view to its eventual abolition.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Questions on the National Service Acts should normally be addressed to the Minister of Labour and National Service, but as these two Questions raise major issues of policy I will deal with them myself. No reduction in the period of National Service can be contemplated at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that the Acts come to an end before the end of this year, are the Government undertaking a review of the position? When will they be in a position to make an announcement on the subject?

The Prime Minister: The future policy on National Service will be dealt with on the White Paper on Defence which it is hoped will be published next week. Thereafter there will be a defence debate in which the whole matter can be raised.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Do I understand from what he has just said that in the Defence White Paper the Government will state their intentions about the National Service Acts?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would like to be reassured upon that subject. I said that there will be no change, and that no reduction in the period of National Service can be contemplated at the present time.

Mr. Yates: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the period of National Service was increased to two years a specific promise was made to the House that it would be reduced as soon as practicable and that it was not to be regarded as a feature of the British way of life? Does he not think that the country is entitled to adequate notice in order that this matter can be reviewed, and would it not, in accordance with his own policy, be an excellent step towards setting the people free by removing the shackles of conscription?

The Prime Minister: I cannot think of anything that would be more disastrous for us than at this moment to reduce the two years' period of National Service. I am sure it would spread despondency throughout free Europe and would make even more difficult than they are many of our relations with the United States.

Mr. Shinwell: But regarding the problem solely from the standpoint of military expediency, and not looking at it as a matter of principle, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not say in October of last year that a third world war seemed unlikely, and in view of that statement is there not some reason for reviewing the position and bringing about a possible reduction in the period?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If it be true, as we all earnestly hope, that the danger of a third world war has receded—and that is a matter which no one can declare with certitude—it is largely due to the exertions made by this country, by the United States and by our allies in Europe to place ourselves in a position of defence; and if at what may be a critical and delicate moment in world history we were suddenly to make a pull-back of this kind, it might do harm far outside anything we can think of.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH

ARMY Malaya and Indo-China (Liaison)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for War what coordination exists between the efforts of British Forces in Malaya and French Forces in Indo-China.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): There is a close interchange of information and

liaison visits are made between these theatres. Diplomatic and Staff discussions have taken place and will also be held in the future.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will lose no opportunity of improving this machinery of consultation and discussion with the other interested parties?

Mr. Hutchison: Yes. Sir.

War Office Staff

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War how many persons are now employed at the War Office; and how this figure compares with that of 12 months ago.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: The strength on 1st January this year was 7,107. This is 315 less than the figure for 1st January, 1952.

Mr. Swingler: But can the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it possible to carry out by the end of the financial year the 10 per cent. reduction which the Minister pledged himself to carry out at the beginning of the financial year?

Mr. Hutchison: The hon. Gentleman will remember, I have no doubt, that my right hon. Friend gave as his objective a 10 per cent. reduction at the time of the Estimates. The Estimates for this year will be introduced shortly and I think the hon. Gentleman will find, when he compares those two figures, that the target of my right hon. Friend will be very nearly achieved.

Newton House Estate (Acquisition)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now give a decision as to whether the War Office are to acquire the Newton House Estate on Fylingdale Moor, near Whitby, in view of the fact that his Department has delayed the decision for some years.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Planning clearance was received on 6th February and instructions were issued on 7th February for negotiations to be opened for the purchase of Newton House Estate. As has been explained to my hon. Friend, planning clearance was a prerequisite before a decision to acquire the estate could be taken.

Mr. Spearman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this property was requisitioned in 1940 and subject to a public inquiry in 1948, and will he do everything he can to see that in 1953 its future is finally settled?

Mr. Hutchison: Yes, Sir, we are most anxious to get on with this type of case, but to introduce harmony into the many interests concerned, which is necessary before one can arrive at a solution, is not always easy.

NATIONAL FINANCE

Commonwealth Development (Sterling Convertibility)

Mr. Crosland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £60 million sterling which he proposes should be made available for Commonwealth development through the International Bank will be convertible into dollars.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): It would be contrary to the principles on which the International Bank works to tie these loans to exports from the United Kingdom, but, in approving releases for specific schemes, my right hon. Friend does not contemplate authorising conversion into dollars.

Mr. Crosland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plan to make non-resident sterling convertible was agreed upon or discussed at the Commonwealth Conference; by what stages it is proposed to bring this plan into effect; and whether it has yet been discussed with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate on the Commonwealth Economic Conference on 3rd February.

Mr. Crosland: In view of the fact that neither of those right hon. Gentlemen said anything on this subject, is it really not possible for the Government to give any indication of what happened on this extremely important subject at the Conference?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that careful study of the statements of my right hon. Friends will not confirm the fleeting impression of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Financial Secretary aware that his reply will lead all of us on this side of the House to draw the conclusion that the account I gave of the proposed plan was substantially accurate since it has not been denied?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the impression will be the precise converse.

Imperial Preference

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the conclusions reached at the Commonwealth Economic Conference and his declared policy to bring about a world in which trade can move as freely as possible, Her Majesty's Government will now abandon the policy of Imperial Preference.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 16 of the Final Communiqué of the Commonwealth Economic Conference (Cmd. 8717).

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Financial Secretary ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to read that report again, also the reported speech of a Canadian Minister about a week ago, and also to read his own speech of last Tuesday?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be only too glad to meet the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) here guilty of a grave deviation from Conservative policy? Does he intend now to join the Liberal Party?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not like to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on any question of deviation.

Trade Barriers

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to implement the declared policy of trade not aid, he will, as soon as practicable, take the necessary steps to remove all barriers to trade, both at home and abroad; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in the House on 3rd February.

£ Sterling (Convertibility)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the strength of the £sterling on the international market, he will now make sterling freely convertible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Cannot my hon. Friend release the pound sterling and make it freely convertible, and thus enable sterling once again to be the big currency of the world on which international trade moves?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to my very full reply.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the answer mean that the intention of the Government has been concentrated rather upon improving the internal purchasing value of the pound which is in great need of improvement?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It means exactly what it says.

STORM DAMAGE, SCOTLAND

Mr. J. Stuart: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make the statement to which I referred at Question time.
First, I know that hon. Members will have learnt with deep regret of the sad loss yesterday of the Fraserburgh lifeboat with the loss of six men. This is yet another chapter in the sad tale of disaster which has distressed us all so grievously in the course of the last few days. The whole House will, I know, wish to join with me in expressing our sincere sympathy with the relatives of those who have given their lives in the performance of their dangerous calling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Since my statement last Wednesday, I have been able to collect further reports from local authorities and other bodies and to formulate an estimate of the damage caused by the storm. The reports now show that in addition to the six deaths I referred to last week, three other

persons are known to have died as a result of accidents which occurred during the storm. The number of people who were rendered homeless was between 150 and 200, and, as I said before, most of them have returned to their own homes. In some cases, however, where houses have been destroyed or are in need of substantial repairs, people will have to be kept in temporary housing for the time being. As regards the 37 persons rendered homeless at Huntly, accommodation has been found for them in a hutted camp about a mile from the burgh.
The local authorities in the areas affected by the storm report widespread damage to houses, schools and roads and in certain cases to coast protection works. At Kirkwall, where serious damage occurred to a sea wall, the repairs are estimated to cost £28,000. Much of the damage such as broken slates and fallen chimney pots is not readily assessable.
As regards the fishing industry, two boats were lost and about 100 damaged at various places, but a full assessment of the damage will not be possible until all the boats driven ashore have been re-floated and surveyed and all the trawlers have returned to port. I understand, however, that nearly all these are insured. There are, as the House knows, over 20 boats still ashore at Ullapool. Four tugs have now arrived, including one from the Admiralty, and an effort will be made to refloat the boats on the spring tides at the end of this week. Arrangements have also been made for military assistance to he given during this operation.
I should like to mention particularly to the House a remarkable and very gallant feat of seamanship which saved the crew of the "Coronia," of Lossiemouth, the boat which was lost in the Moray Firth. Skipper William Imlach, of the trawler "Loch Awe," of Aberdeen, received her messages of distress, and in the height of the gale and with a visibility of 50 yards found his way to her by dead reckoning in time to rescue the crew. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The cost of repairing damage to fishery harbours is not known meanwhile but at least eight suffered minor damage, the most severe loss being the destruction of a small timber pier at Whalsay.
Happily, reports from all parts of Scotland confirm that the damage to agriculture has been comparatively small,


and in no part of the country has it been exceptional or exceeded what might be expected as the result of normal gale conditions.
The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the General Post Office have suffered damage to their installations. principally by falling timber. The Hydro Board have repaired most of their damage, which they estimate at not more than £10,000, and the General Post Office should reconnect the 8,000 subscribers whose lines were disconnected within the next two or three weeks. The Scottish Gas Board suffered heavy damage at the gasworks at Banff, but reserve equipment was sent up immediately and the works recommenced operations today.
The heaviest material loss, however, has been suffered by private owners of woodlands and by the Forestry Commission. I very much regret that the amount of gale damage to woodlands is severe. The damage is mainly concentrated in the north-eastern counties. North of the Caledonian Canal, spasmodic damage has occurred, but it is on a much smaller scale. The south and west of Scotland, fortunately, have largely escaped.
The damage is predominantly in the middle-aged and older woodlands on private estates. In the younger plantations of the Forestry Commission, windfall is much less extensive. Estimates of the quantity blown must necessarily be treated with reserve at this stage, but the total in Scotland as a whole might be of the order of 30 to 35 million cubic feet. The magnitude of this figure can be gauged if I mention that in Scotland last year a total of 16 million cubic feet of all categories and types of timber was licensed for felling. This figure included 4 million cubic feet of hardwoods and 5 million cubic feet of thinnings in coniferous woodlands.
The clearing up of this damage will need to be tackled energetically by the Forestry Commission, private owners and the timber trade. Detailed plans must await a more accurate assessment of the quantity of timber of the various categories involved, and an estimate of the time at which they can be placed on the market. Discussions are proceeding this week in Scotland between the owners and the timber trade and with the advisory

committees of the Forestry Commission for the areas principally concerned. Further proposals for Government action may well emerge from these consultations as more detailed information is obtained, and it would be a mistake to take hasty action where our knowledge is incomplete.
In the meantime, however, plans are being made to ensure the orderly disposal of the timber from the blown trees. The present consumption of sawn softwoods in Great Britain is approximately 1·2 million standards per annum, of which less than 5 per cent. is available from the home woodlands. But this rate of consumption is restricted by licensing, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Materials has agreed to make special arrangements to meet the present emergency. Broadly speaking, he proposes to arrange that licences are freely issued to consumers to use sawn timber from the blown trees. The Ministry of Materials will also consider the purchase of suitable timber, both sawn and in the log, for stockpiling purposes as soon as more details can be given of the quantities and specifications available.
With regard to the smaller sizes of timber that must be disposed of, discussions are proceeding with the National Coal Board, who are co-operating most readily in working out the best measures to ensure its early use. Detailed plans must, naturally, await more precise assessments of quantities and period of delivery.
Lastly, the Forestry Commission have for the present stopped the issue of clear-felling licences for softwoods in Scotland, save where circumstances are exceptional.
In view of these measures, and bearing in mind that, as I have said, only a small proportion of our home consumption is normally met from our home woodlands, I am satisfied that there need be no anxiety as to our ability to absorb, and to make proper use of, all this fallen timber after it has been sawn.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that I speak in the name of the whole House in saying that we associate ourselves with the sympathy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in the sad loss of the Fraser-burgh lifeboat and of the others who have suffered the loss of their dear ones in this disaster. May I ask whether the Minister or any of


his colleagues in the Scottish Office have paid a personal visit to this area, which has suffered so greatly? I am quite sure that a visit from a Minister gives the people some encouragement to believe that action will be taken to relieve them in their distress.
I hope that the pepole who have been deprived of houses will not be left too long in the temporary accommodation. May I suggest that some of the timber houses, which, I understand, are still on order, might be diverted to the area to relieve this rather urgent distress?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the boats were insured, but there seems to be some doubt whether insurance covers this type of damage. Can he tell us whether the insurance to which he referred does cover this type of damage and that where it does not the Government can give an assurance to these fishermen that they will get assistance to replace their gear and boats at the earliest possible moment?
I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House with the regrets expressed about the loss of this timber. Timber was one of the stand-bys for the future economy of Scotland and any loss in this direction is a loss to plans spread over the next 50 years for the rehabilitation of population in the Highlands and northern districts of Scotland.

Mr. Stuart: The right hon. Member asked me about visits, but with the very widespread nature of this damage it did not seem to me that a great deal could be achieved by visiting certain isolated spots when the whole area was suffering. I have, therefore, been concerned throughout with collecting information from all over the area and with attending at the emergency ministerial meetings here to decide on the best steps to be taken to meet the emergency.
Incidentally, I was also informed—this covers the point raised in regard to houses—that there was nothing which the local authorities were not able to cope with. There was only one request for emergency accommodation—for a Department of Agriculture Camp at Huntly—and this, of course, was immediately agreed to. But that does not solve the permanent housing problem and I agree that we must press ahead and do all we can there.
I believe that the boat damage is covered by insurance. If there is any difficulty about this it is a matter which, of course, we must look into.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As regards the felling of the timber, which is a national disaster, does my right hon. Friend realise that the present timber merchants and foresters cannot possibly cope with such vast numbers of trees? Will he give consideration to Government help, either by accepting the very generous Canadian offers or at any rate providing equipment and men for the clearance and storage of these trees, which must be done within a year if they are not to deteriorate? Will he also see whether it is possible for the Government to give a guaranteed price?

Mr. Stuart: I should not like to say anything at this stage about the guaranteed price. There is the market; if we can get the timber to the market there is the use for it, but I will certainly think about it. We do welcome all offers of assistance and the Government of Canada have been thanked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure we are all grateful for all the offers which have come from so many parts of the world.
In this case, with the stopping of clear felling licences in other areas and concentration of the available merchants and saw-millers on the afflicted area, we hope to be able to make progress with this problem. It is a great problem; I am not minimising the difficulties. Tomorrow, the representatives of the timber trade, the Forestry Commission and the owners of woodland are meeting in Aberdeen to discuss the best way of handling the problem.

Mr. Hector Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that very comprehensive statement, may I ask whether he is aware that in the opinion of experts one of the most urgent things about the timber disaster is to save the timber before it turns what is called "blue"? For that purpose bands of woodmen should be organised, markets should be found and transport found to bring the timber to the markets so that it could be divided into two classes—(a) that which would be used for housing, building and things of that sort, and (b) the other classes for fuel. What is being done about that?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that those are the very points which we are discussing at present. This timber must be peeled and stacked, if not sawn within a limited period.

Mr. Spence: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the long-term effect of this disaster on the dedication scheme, since most of the large owners will be paid for successive stages of the scheme by the orderly selling of their timber? Will he look into that?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, I will. I have had a preliminary meeting with the Forestry Commission. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the first essential work is clearing and that we must look into these other points later.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that in connection with windblown timber he will mobilise the manpower of the Forestry Commission in Scotland—use their tractors and other mechanism—and so proceed quickly to get these forests cleared and the timber stored? Would he also consult his right hon. Friends to see that the price of timber shall be reduced and not kept at an artificial price for pit props and housing timber now that we have this augmentation to the market?

Mr. Stuart: The question of price will be watched very carefully. I think that if anything the bottom is more likely to fall out of the market owing to the fact that it is very difficult and expensive to clear this wind-blown timber, but I will certainly bear in mind the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend conduct a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Fraserburgh lifeboat disaster, which affects not only Fraserburgh but many other parts of the country, because that lifeboat was of standard design? It is very important that there should be a full inquiry into all the circumstances and causes.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this timber disaster is

far beyond the capacity of the trade to deal with in the time available? I beg him not to rule out the generous Canadian offer of help. We have to get these woodlands cleared in the next 12 months. If the Canadians can help, I beg my right hon. Friend not to rule that out as we shall want all the labour we can get.

Mr. Stuart: I assure my hon. Friend that I rule out nothing. I agree with him entirely that we have to try to get this cleared. That is essential and we shall do everything possible.
In regard to the lifeboat, my hon. Friend may rest assured that an inquiry will be carried out. I believe that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution are instituting an inquiry.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister make known as soon as possible what help private owners who suffered loss may expect? Secondly, will a major installation such as a harbour wall or pier be treated as a national responsibility, which will not fall entirely on the local authority concerned?

Mr. Stuart: Emergency work to which the Home Secretary referred is eligible for Treasury assistance and in those cases application should be made to the appropriate Government Department. As to the other question, details in connection with the Lord Mayor's Appeal have to be worked out and Scotland will be represented on the committee dealing with the Fund. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make a statement on the subject in the near future.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to smaller woodland owners? The larger woodland owner has some organisation to deal with the matter, although that will want augmenting, but the smaller owner has no organisation to deal with what is a complete disaster.

Mr. Stuart: Yes, we certainly wish to pay attention to all these losses and do our best to get them cleared up as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, further considered.

Clause 16.—(REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT.)

3.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move, in page 22, line 29 to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."
The first two Amendments on the Order Paper, of course, go together. The House will recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) moved an Amendment which sought to extend from one month to 12 months the period of grace allowed to the Commission in applying for licences for road passenger services which they provided. After a short debate, I indicated that, although we could not concede the full extension, we were prepared to go into the matter and, should the hon. Member for Swansea, West care to put down a further Amendment at this stage of the Bill to extend the period to three months, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to add his name to it and to see that it was incorporated in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Swansea. West has not thought it proper to put down the Amendment, but since the Committee stage we have given further consideration to the matter and we are satisfied that a period of one month is too constricted for this purpose, that a good deal of clerical work is necessarily involved and, by the same token, that by extending the period from one month to three months we should be doing something which would provide, as we now think, an adequate period for this purpose. For that reason I ask the House to embody the Amendment in the Bill.

Mr. Percy Morris: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was disappointed at the time that the hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment in the terms in which I moved it, but when he suggested that he would

extend the time a little, I was very grateful to him. He indicated that he would accept an Amendment from me or would himself put down one at the Report stage. I assumed, apparently rightly, that he would complete his bargain with me. I am therefore very glad to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 30, leave out "that month," and insert "the said three months."—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 23, line 8. to leave out subsection (4).
If I were asked to describe this subsection in relation to all the other proposals in the Bill, I would say that it was the meanest and most contemptible of any of the proposals which the Government have included in the Bill. It is not that the proposal robs the British Transport Commission of a considerable sum of revenue—revenue which is very useful and helpful—but that it prevents a large number of London people, including adults, but very largely children, from enjoying the advantage, particularly in the summer months, of day trips to the seaside resorts on the South-East and South Coasts.
Last year, no fewer than 3,350,000 passengers were conveyed by the London Transport Executive in contract carriages. That figure includes the passengers who travelled in contract carriages within the London Transport Executive's area, and the right hon. Gentleman is permitting the powers to provide that service to be retained. Nevertheless, if we make a modest deduction from that figure. we see that about 750,000 to one million passengers were conveyed by contract carriages or by private hire, which is more or less the same thing, by the London Transport Executive outside the boundaries of their area, which, for all practical purposes, means the seaside places on the South and South-East Coast.
I think the Minister could quite well afford to concede the purpose of the Amendment, because this service is used almost entirely by London people and very largely by children organised into parties to spend a day at places like Littlehampton, Bognor Regis. Worthing and other parts of the South Coast. This


service is run at a very low cost to them, largely because the London Passenger Transport Executive are able to use vehicles on Saturdays and Sundays which otherwise would remain idle in the garages.
We must bear in mind that the great peak of London road passenger traffic lies within the period Monday to Friday inclusive. On Saturdays and Sundays the general volume of traffic falls considerably. By this method the London Transport Executive are therefore able on Saturdays and Sundays to use 'buses which otherwise would remain idle and to use the staff who would not have adequate work to do. They are able to use these 'buses and the staff and to give the children of London a chance to spend a day by the sea at a very low cost. The right hon. Gentleman is depriving those children of that opportunity.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Oh, no.

Mr. Sparks: It is not a bit of good the Minister saying, "Oh, no," because the only alternative is to travel by private coach at twice or three times the fares. In any event, the problem is that on Saturdays and Sundays it is very difficult to find private coaches available to convey children at a cheap rate to the seaside, largely because the coaches are booked. The charabanc and coach services run by private individuals are concerned more with adults, and their busy period is largely over the week ends. They cannot be bothered with young children.
In any event, they have not the facilities; they have not the double-decker 'buses. By using a double-decker 'bus the London Transport Executive can convey as many as 80 children in a 'bus. No private enterprise undertaking could convey anything like such a number in one 'bus. As a result, the cost of using the alternative of private enterprise is prohibitive.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his proposal will make no difference to London children and will not prevent them from being able to take a day by the seaside, he will find in the course of time that he has made a very great mistake, because the cost will be prohibitive,

and, further, private enterprise coaches will not be available for this kind of traffic.
4.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are always looking backwards. They never seem to be able to look forward. They are more concerned with going back to the position as it was. In this subsection the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to reimpose upon the London Transport Executive boundaries which were laid down 20 years ago under the 1933 Act. We have moved a long way in the last 20 years. If the opportunity could be provided, a substantial case could be made for an extension and variation of the boundaries of the London Passenger Transport area, because London has been continually expanding further and further away from the centre. The built-up area is growing larger and larger.
To seek to crib, cabin and confine the great passenger transport undertaking of the London Transport Executive within a boundary laid down 20 years ago is rather like trying to put a quart into a pint pot. I suggest to the Minister that he has little, if anything, to lose by accepting this Amendment or making some variation. He admits in subsection (3) that a case can be made for maintaining these services. He goes so far as to say that he will permit any employees of the British Transport Commission to avail themselves, with their friends, of these contract carriages outside the London Passenger Transport area. Therefore, to some extent, he has given away his case. All that can be said in favour of that can be said in favour of similar facilities for the children of London, and their parents, too, who desire to spend a day by the seaside.
They need not necessarily spend the time exclusively by the seaside. There are many parts outside the London Passenger Transport area, with open woodlands and heathlands, and places like that, where the children of London, confined as they are to the smoke and grime of the built-up areas of the City, can spend a day. It is a great joy to take them out into the wide open spaces and to give them a run for the day on a heathland or moorland or anywhere, quite apart from a trip to the seaside.
The Minister should look at this matter again. It will mean little to him to make this concession. This work which he is seeking to take away from London Transport just cannot be undertaken by any private organisation. It is not worth their while. It is not an economical proposition for them to do it. The provision in this Clause will prevent a large number of London people from visiting the seaside.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I beg to second the Amendment.
I fully agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). This must be one of the most obnoxious parts of what is, as far as we are concerned, a rotten Bill anyway. In the Committee stage the Minister said, in effect, that the reason for this subsection was that London Transport, because of their great resources, would be able to provide better vehicles at cheaper fares with a finer service than private enterprise. Therefore, he said, it was necessary, if private enterprise was to enjoy this wonderful free competition about which we have heard so much, to restrict London Transport and to confine them within a 10-mile radius so that they would not be allowed to compete. That is the most extraordinary Conservative philosophy of free competition.
We understood that everybody would be able to compete with one another and that the consumer would get the benefit of the service. That is not to be so here. We are bringing in a special Bill to determine that this type of competition shall be such that private enterprise will gain the plums of the trade. We have said in the past that we believe that the Conservative Party have introduced this Bill because they have received money from private road transport interests. They have denied that, but they have never published their accounts.
What else can be the reason for introducing a subsection like this, which restricts the Executive in such a way that it cannot compete, than that the Conservative Party have received something from private enterprise? This is a sort of payment for services rendered in the past. This is a most obnoxious subsection. The Minister cannot defend it, in view of what he has said about the great,

open competition which is to give great benefit to the consumer. How can he justify this subsection which will restrict London Transport from providing a finer service than private enterprise? Why not let private enterprise and the London Passenger Transport Executive go into free competition with each other, and let the public decide? That is happening at the moment. What is wrong with that in Tory philosophy? Why restrict one side? I ask the Minister to look at this position again. We shall be most interested to see what sort of reply he offers on this occasion.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The sort of speeches to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) would, if my right hon. Friend were to give them any credence and to act on them to any degree whatever, lead to a demand on the part of my hon. Friends on these benches that something far more positive should be done to curtail the operation of the London Transport Executive than what we are doing in this Bill. The party on these benches is being extremely lenient to the Executive and its operations.
Its general operations will no doubt come up for discussion in a week or two as a result of certain Motions on the Order Paper. The idea that at this stage of the Bill we should give way to some of the bogus pleas made by hon. Gentlemen opposite on behalf of so-called miserable, unhappy children of London who are unable to get to the seaside, is one which I cannot imagine my right hon. Friend accepting for one moment.
It is time that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that it is not part of our major intention to revert to the pre-nationalisation position. In 1947 certain changes were made in the functions and scope of operations of the London Transport Executive. Broadly speaking, we are attempting in this Clause and elsewhere in the Bill to go back to the position that prevailed under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. My hon. Friends and persons concerned in the road transport industry outside are much grieved to find that it is not possible to go back exactly to the framework that was then in existence; but we are content with that position and


we are prepared to see my right hon. Friend's proposals for the London Passenger Transport area go through in this Bill.

Mr. Mellish: I hope that the noble Lord will say a few words about the passengers.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The 1947 Act gave the Transport Commission power to run contract carriages anywhere, though those powers were not generally exercised; but two or three years ago authority was given to the London Transport Executive to run contract carriage services 100 miles outside London and, so far as I know, they are doing that today. This is where the pleas of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite come into the picture. They ask why, if we have reached a stage where the Executive can run these contract carriages with London children to the seaside, we should now limit their operations and not go back to the position as it was before. I have never heard it suggested that, before 1947, the poor dejected children of London could not go to the seaside at reasonable prices in fact, they did so. If hon. Members opposite are now suggesting that they got there more freely and at lower prices than they did before, that is tantamount to saying that the London Transport Executive, by means of the general fares charged to passengers, were subsidising these journeys.

Mr. Albert Evans: Does the noble Lord not appreciate that this traffic has been built up to become one of the most profitable sections of the business of the London Transport Executive, and that, far from being subsidised by any other section of the business, it probably put something into the pool from which every other section has benefited?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps the figures will be brought out by my right hon. Friend showing the extent to which the ever-increasing fares now being imposed on the London public are due to the subsidising of these journeys. Nobody would suggest that such services should be withdrawn, and I am perfectly confident that, when this Bill goes through, there will be other services which will come along and provide for these children the facilities that were provided before.
Many people may claim that the present position in regard to the families and friends of employees of the Commission should continue, and again, there are people outside who think that this is a very great hardship on private enterprise and that this aspect of the London monopoly should be further curtailed, but on these benches we do not think so and we support my right hon. Friend in this proviso.
The whole case for our action rests upon this vast monopoly that has been created for the London Transport Executive in that no 'bus service run by private enterprise outside can be allowed to take up passengers in the London area, and as long as that situation persists it is clear that the London Transport Executive have an enormous field for their operations. They have only to offer a service inside the London area, where millions of people live, for that service to be taken up and used to their advantage.

Mr. David Jones: When the noble Lord suggests—

Mr. C. W. Gibson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Gibson.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With great respect, Sir, I gave way to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones).

Mr. Jones: Is the noble Lord suggesting that this contract carriage traffic of the London Transport Executive is a monopoly in the London area? If so, he is completely wrong.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The London Transport Executive have a monopoly of all services inside the London area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not contract carriages."] As far as I know, there are no contract carriages which can operate inside the London area, pick up or set down passengers, or indeed take a party from one end of London to the other.

Mr. Ernest Davies: rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have plenty of opportunity of speaking later on.
I was saying that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite make an entirely false plea in suggesting that the facilities


and opportunities of the London public will be curtailed in the least degree by the passage of this Bill. On the contrary, it is quite possible that, when the provisions of this Bill are enacted, much greater opportunities for journeying to the seaside at a much lower cost will prevail.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: It is quite obvious that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) does not understand what happens in London, and that he is as hidebound with Tory ideology as anybody on those benches who talks about monopoly. There is no monopoly in this particular service. There are dozens of coach companies in London which run parties of children to the seaside on any day of the week, and which have done so for some time, in competition with the London Transport Executive on these services.
It seems to me that, when hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to justify the rejection of this Amendment on the ground that this service is a monopoly which London Transport ought not to have, they show a complete ignorance of this subject. The noble Lord simply does not understand the way in which the people in the large towns live.

Mr. James Callaghan: Surely he is chairman of the party's Transport Committee?

Mr. Gibson: That makes it worse.
It is a fact that there is a tremendous traffic at weekends from London to the seaside, particularly in the summer months, and the services which the London Transport Executive have been able to provide with their 'buses have been of inestimable benefit to thousands of Londoners and their families.
The rejection of this Amendment would be completely inconsistent, because, as my hon. Friend has said, although the Government did not put it in the first draft, they have now provided in the Clause that the London Transport Executive shall be permitted to allow members of their own staff, their children, relatives and friends to hire coaches or 'buses to take them on journeys, not merely to the seaside, but far into the country. I have known 'buses taking parties to the Cotswolds on very enjoyable outings which enabled large numbers of Londoners to see the scenery of part of our country

which most of them seldom have the opportunity of visiting. This opportunity will go if this Amendment is not accepted.
I am amazed that the suggestion that it should be rejected should be coupled with a threat of something worse if we do not drop it. That is something new. I thought we were a free democracy. I thought we were engaged in building up in this country a competitive service which would produce all those things which free competition produced in the London transport services before we had the first London Transport Board. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers that or not, but some of us do.
We remember the mad, fierce competition, with the 'buses running behind each other or racing past each other to the danger of pedestrians, and the mad cutting of fares one against the other, with the result that the men who drove the 'buses and the conductors who worked on them suffered in the wages they were paid and in the conditions in which they worked. Does the noble Lord wish to go back to that? Of course not. He says that we ought to keep the London Transport Executive going, because London is a special case, but if that is so, they ought to be allowed to do the job properly and be enabled to continue this very valuable service for the people of London.
I want the Minister to use this opportunity. All that is happening now is that greater encouragement and assistance are being given to the private coach companies in the London area. The competition which they suffer at the moment will disappear, and the private coach companies will be able to do exactly as they like and run services where they can make a satisfactory profit out of them.
If the Government benches really believe in competition, this is the best kind of competition they could have. It is the competition of an efficiently-run organisation which has produced a service for tens of thousands of Londoners which did not exist before, and it has succeeded in competition with private 'enterprise. I suspect that the reason the Government are so hot about getting rid of it is that it has succeeded so well that it ate into the profits made by the coach companies running from London to the coast and other parts of the country.
To suggest that this is wrong because the Government are trying to return to pre-nationalisation days is nonsense. The Bill does not by any means take us back to pre-nationalisation days. The people of London will regard it as a punishment for failing to return Socialist Members of Parliament with big majorities, and they will remember it when the next General Election comes. In spite of the hot feelings about this, I hope the Government will seriously consider altering the Clause in order to give the majority of Londoners the same kind of service as may be given under the Bill to the employees of the London Transport Executive, their relatives and their friends.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not in any way anxious to curtail the debate, but it might be of some interest to the House if I made a few observations now, on which, I do not doubt, other hon. Members will be able to hang their further comments. It might be as well, for the benefit of all, if I attempt two simple definitions.
There is no limitation on contract carriages. It is true that the London Transport Executive have no monopoly in contract carriages in the London area or elsewhere. However, in regard to stage or express services, an outside 'bus—using the phrase in the sense of a 'bus which is not part of the London Transport Executive's property—can pick up a passenger outside London and drop him within London or pick up a passenger inside London and drop him outside London, but it cannot pick up and drop a passenger within the London area, with its extension. In that field there is an undoubted monopoly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would simplify matters if hon. Members would listen to definitions. I was referring to that field alone. We were dealing with stage and express services; I have passed from contract carriages for the purpose of definition. In that field, and that field alone, there is a monopoly.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I am sure the Minister will agree that that is not absolutely true. There are a number of coaches which operate from inside London. To name only one service, there is Birch's Coaches from King's Cross to my own constituency. They

can pick me up at King's Cross and drop me at Welwyn Garden city—they very often do—and that is in the London area.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman once worked in the Department over which I now have the honour of presiding as Minister. I wish he were capable of following an argument lasting only half a minute. That is what I said. Any 'bus can pick up a passenger in London and take him to Wellingborough—

Mr. Lindgren: In my example, it was to Welwyn Garden City.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —but 'buses cannot pick up passengers within the London area and drop them within the London area.

Mr. Sparks: Welwyn Garden City is within the London area.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With an express or stage service that cannot be done, but it can be done with a contract carriage.

Mr. Lindgren: The Minister is wrong. There is a 'bus owned by Birch's which goes from King's Cross to Rushden. The right hon. Gentleman can get on the 'bus at King's Cross tonight and come home with me—I shall be pleased to find him a bed—and it will drop him at Welwyn Garden City, and that is in the London area. There are many such services.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Provided the House rises sufficiently early to enable me to take advantage of the hon. Gentleman's invitation, I will consider it on its merits.
There is in the control of the London Transport Executive a right to give privileges to certain specified London companies working by special arrangements with the London Transport Executive, but that right, which no doubt operates in the case of Welwyn Garden City and Rushden, is terminable at the will of the London Transport Executive. I am correct on this. There is no absolute right to pick and drop within the London area for anyone other than the London Transport Executive, though it may be, and it undoubtedly is so in some cases, that there are arrangements between private companies and the London Transport Executive which can be terminated when the Executive desire alterations of that kind.
I thought it as well to get this clear at the start in regard to the field where the monopoly operates. While I do not doubt that they will do so, I do not want anybody to interrupt what I am going to say by suggesting that the London Transport Executive have not got a monopoly. I concede straight away that the London Transport Executive have not got a monopoly in the field of contract carriage services. [An HON. MEMBER: "The noble Lord said there was a monopoly."] I am dealing with my own speech and not that of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who is capable of looking after himself and does so with great effect.
I do not want to be too strict and legalistic, but whoever drew up the Amendment should have looked more closely at the Bill. I expected, after my talks with various hon. Members and after the eloquent speech in the Committee stage of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), that there would be an Amendment to omit subsection (3), which is the operative part of the Clause. It is the part which says that it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run public service vehicles as contract carriages except in certain specified areas, which are in Subsection (4).
I do not want to spend too long over this, but it is worth while pointing out what would be the consequences if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Clapham were accepted. The hon. Member said that if his Amendment were not accepted all sorts of alarming things would happen. Alarming things would happen if we accepted his Amendment. Subsection (4, a) applies to the Commission the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and defines the power of the Board to run contract carriages. The Opposition have asked us to omit that. The result would be that the limitation on the running of contract carriages in subsection (3) would become an absolute ban on the running of contract carriages by the London Transport Executive even in the London area.
Subsection (4, b) corresponds to Section 15 (3) of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and this exempts the Commission from the obligation to

obtain road service licences for their services in the special area. Hon. Members will know the difference between the London Passenger Transport area, the London Traffic area and the special area. I have learned that very hard lesson in the course of the last few months. The result of omitting subsection (4, b) would be that in future the Commission would have to apply for road service licences for all their services in the special area. I imagine that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Clapham.
At the moment, under the Bill the licensing authority have to take into account the obligation and special duty on the part of the Executive in regard to the London Transport services when the London Transport Executive apply for road service licences outside the special area. The last consequence would be that the licensing authority would not have to take that into account at all.
All this shows the danger of amending a Bill without all the advice which one gets when one has the great resources of a Government Department and its legal advisers behind one. Nevertheless, it is a rather curious omission. All the arguments which have been advanced today could well have been advanced—indeed, could more properly have been advanced—on subsection (3). We have had a very interesting recapitulation of the arguments put forward with a great deal of vigour on the Committee stage.
4.30 p.m.
I wish to tell hon. Gentlemen frankly my own feeling in this matter. I am, and would be, extremely reluctant to do anything which would appear to be mean or petty. I am also, and would be, extremely reluctant to do anything which would add to the financial difficulties of the London Transport Executive. Although they have never put forward this case on the grounds of finance, there is about £40,000 gross profit from these services, and every little helps. A lot of passengers have to be carried at 2d. each to make a profit of £40,000.
I approach considerations of this kind with a good deal of sympathy, provided that they do not cut across the absolutely inevitable approach in this field. I have. for example, looked at the question, in consultation with the Executive, of the


double-decker 'buses and how far they, as the only owners of them, are in a special position to take parties of children and others at cheaper rates. But we must remember the heavy losses of the London Transport Executive, the inability to meet their full central charges and costs, and so we cannot make too much of that.
I have also looked into the question of the vehicles—I think some 40 of them—which they purchased for this special purpose, and the question of vehicles, particularly at weekends, to see whether there was here sufficient justification for making an inroad into this general approach in this matter. I must tell the House that it is not simply solved merely by paying quite definite regard to facts of that kind. I have here to recognise that, although, I repeat, there is no monopoly in the field of contract services, that field is one in which the private operator can fairly expect to operate without competition which comes from those who over the whole of their internal London passenger field are able to keep him outside altogether.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) chided me rather by asking, "Does not the Minister believe in competition—great open competition—and why can we not have both sections of enterprise, London Transport and the private operators, competing together in this field?" If the hon. Member is prepared to accept that, he would then have to allow the private operator to come into the London Transport special area for ordinary express services. Otherwise, it is very unfair that a large monopoly in the field of express services. the precise overheads of which, we hear from the chairman of the Commission, can never be accurately assessed in respect of any one part of the undertaking, should be able to use that monopoly position in one field to enter into another field while the people in the other field are not able to break into the monopoly field.
Accordingly, I very much fear, despite the arguments which have been put forward with great vigour, and I recognise with great conviction, that in the interests of that fair competition which runs right through this Bill and is the main purpose of the Bill, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In his closing remarks, the Minister was speaking with great plausibility, but I am afraid that his argument is not valid. The reason is that the argument he was applying against the London Transport Executive operating contract carriages outside their special area could well apply to private 'bus undertakings which in every case in all the larger cities of this country operate contract carriages where they are not operated by municipal enterprise, and even in some such cases they are under no restriction as to the area over which they operate. If the Minister would apply the same principle to the B.E.T. as to the L.T.E., his argument would be logical and perhaps reasonable in that regard. However, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman applies it only to public enterprise and refuses to apply it to private enterprise shows where his prejudices lie.
It was rather hard on the Minister that he had to get up and explain to the chairman of the Tory Transport Committee what contract carriages were and what the actual monopoly position of London Transport Executive was. After all, I presume that it is the chairman of the Conservative Transport Committee, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who has been advising the Minister on this Bill, and the muddled confusion of the Bill is a reflection of his ignorance.
This action of the Minister is mean and petty. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to be mean and petty, but I cannot help feeling and sharing the views of my hon. Friends that the action he is taking in this case is despicable. What has the Minister got against London? Why is he treating London in this way? He himself pointed out that the income from the operation of contract carriages was comparatively small. He promised in the Committee stage to give the figure, and he now states that it is about £40,000. The figure I had was £45,000, though that is net, and I think the Minister's figure is gross. The Minister is stopping the London Transport Executive carrying on the services which enabled children to go on cheap outings to the coast and country, and parties generally to travel outside London at a reasonable rate.
What private enterprise will be losing as a result of the London Transport


Executive engaging in this operation is £45,000. Is private enterprise so hard up today that it will not allow the London Transport Executive to earn that additional income and the public of London to receive the additional advantage which results from the L.T.E. operating contract carriages? Is private enterprise really in such a bad state that it cannot stand this particular form of competition from the London Transport Executive the earnings from which amount to £40,000 gross, to use the Minister's figure? It is a silly action, involving an insignificant amount, for which there is no justification whatever, which the Minister is taking.
There is every argument why London Transport should be allowed to carry on these services. The main reason is that it is good business for a large undertaking to be able to employ its vehicles during the off-peak periods. It can employ its vehicles at the weekend, when some of them would otherwise be lying idle. It can also employ them in the summer time when, during certain hours, they are in less demand. Further, it is good business for London Transport to engage in this form of enterprise. After all, the Minister has had to come to this House on several occasions and ask for further increases in London Transport fares, and although the figure which he has given us is not large, the actual operation and use of the vehicles brings an indirect advantage to London Transport.
The Minister explained the position on the question of monopoly, but it is necessary for the House to bear in mind that, in regard to the operation of contract carriages, there is no monopoly so far as London Transport is concerned. The Minister himself said that. There is free competition between public and private enterprise, and there has been this free competition for the last two years. All through the debates on this Bill, the Minister has been arguing in favour of free competition. Yesterday we were talking, in relation to goods haulage, about increased competition which the Minister is allowing, and his stated purpose was to increase competition. But here, as soon as it is competition to the advantage of public enterprise and it is competition between public enterprise and private enterprise, he says "We cannot have this competition it is not fair for

public enterprise to compete with private enterprise, and it must stop." So he is getting rid of it.
We had every intention of dividing the House on this Amendment. We consider this to be an important Amendment and we feel that the Minister's action is quite unwarrantable. Unfortunately, we are operating under the Guillotine and our time is short. This brutal Guillotine prevents us from expressing our views in the Division Lobby, but I think my hon. Friends have expressed them very forcibly this afternoon.
I hope the Minister was sincere when he said that he did not want to be petty and mean. If he was sincere in that, can he not give further consideration to this matter between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place? Can he not consider whether private enterprise is able to stand up to this competition and whether it is possible to allow the public of London to enjoy contract services at a reasonable rate as they have done during the past two years?

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the Minister has pointed out, there has been an obvious slip in this Amendment. What appears as subsection (4) should be subsection (3). This was not a printer's error. Everyone has been talking persistently about subsection (3) and not subsection (4).

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchison: I can see the Minister nodding agreement, and I am sure that he would not want to take advantage of a slip, which I am sure is not the responsibility of the Table or of printers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charley MacAndrew): I have been in the Chair only for a short time. If what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, I am not to blame.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I say that, as I have three slips to confess in some subsequent Amendments, I am only too ready to concede this point.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order. There must be at least two slips in this case, because there must be an


error not only in the number of the subsection but also in the number of the line. It should presumably be line 1, subsection (3). We therefore have to assume two independent errors which both have the same result—something which is very remarkable.

Mr. David Renton: Further to that point of order, and to prevent the party opposite falling into an error which I am sure they would not wish to do, may I say that it is on record that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said that it was intended to move to leave out subsection (3)? I do not know whether he appreciates that if he were to do that he would be taking away from the employees of the Commission a very great benefit which it is the intention of the Government to give them. Surely he does not want to move to leave out a subsection which confers such a great benefit.

Mr. Mitchison: That is not so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment has been on the Order Paper for days.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, in page 24, line 18, to leave out subsection (6).
As far as I can understand this somewhat difficult subsection—it is a little difficult to be quite certain what it means—it appears to us to signify this: where the Commission, through a body corporate, and probably through a company, owns shares in a company which is operating passenger transport undertakings or public service vehicles, then the Minister may direct that all the shares of the Commission in the company shall be disposed of, or that such lesser amount shall be disposed of, or at any rate that sufficient shall be disposed of to prevent the Commission having control.
I think I am right in saying that under the subsection the Minister can direct one or any of those things to be done. This seems to me to be unreasonable. By Parliamentary enactments the private railway companies could invest money in or operate public service vehicles, if they could get the necessary acquisition or the investment. Indeed,

it was urged by the railway companies so that they might promote co-ordination between road and rail.
4.45 p.m.
Moreover, in the case of a railway authority, whether the old companies or the present Commission, desiring to close a branch line, it is easier to do it in the public interest if, at the same time, they can substitute a 'bus service or a coach service in order that the public may be catered for. Therefore, on practical grounds of co-ordination of transport, on the ground of the substitution of one form of passenger transport for another where the public interest is furthered thereby, and on the ground that Parliament has for long years—at any rate, for a good many years before the war—enabled private companies to engage in passenger transport business, I ask why the Government are suddenly cutting in and proceeding to treat the British Transport Commission worse than Parliament, under Conservative majorities, treated the old private companies.
The arguments for the companies are well known; they are within the recollection of hon. Members. It seems to me that the case for the companies was fairly strong, and I should have thought that the case for the Commission having the power to do the same thing is no less strong. Therefore, we ask the House to reconsider this matter with a view to preserving the right of the Commission to hold on to the shares it has got in passenger transport undertakings, to have the power to invest in passenger transport undertakings as time goes on, so that the policy of co-ordination, of bringing the services together and substituting road for rail on branch lines where that is expedient in the public interest, may be facilitated.
We trust that this Amendment will commend itself to the House. We are on a point of fundamental principle, and we think that the fundamental principle of this subsection is wrong. We believe that the fundamental principle of our Amendment is right. If our Amendment should not be accepted, we shall later come to another Amendment whereby we propose that the Minister shall not interfere with the Commission beyond the point of ensuring that they have not got a majority of the shares; that is to say, that the Minister would have the power to prevent them having control. That,


however, is a separate Amendment, and, frankly, we prefer this Amendment, so that the Commission can enjoy that degree of commercial freedom which the old main line companies possessed.
I ask the Minister to explain why the Commission should be denied powers that the old private railway companies possessed. We just do not follow it, and I think he ought to tell the House. The Commission ought to enjoy proper freedom in this respect; and for those reasons, and having regard to the time factor under which we are working, which is pretty terrible, we hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is, I am sure, inadvertently mistaken in supposing that the powers referred to in this subsection have anything to do with substituting a 'bus service for a branch line. There are other statutory provisions which have long been in existence under which railway companies could operate such a service.
The proposal in this subsection seems to me very modest indeed. All it does is to permit the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, to direct the Commission to dispose of the majority holding in the 42 'bus companies, which own 14,391 'buses, which are in the monopoly control, or in which the Transport Commission has the majority holding of the shares. It is not a complete holding even there. It is only 99 per cent. I believe.
This subsection would put them in the same position with regard to these 'buses as they already are in the case of some 31 other 'bus companies in which they are in partnership, mostly with the B.E.T. and in which, I understand, they hold shares varying from about 33 to 50 per cent. each to the B.T.C. and the B.E.T. That group contains some 10,370 'buses. Actually, this subsection is a very modest proposal in that it is designed to follow the example of the old railway companies. The old railway companies, and particularly the Great Western Railway, of which I speak from experience as a former solicitor to that company, were pioneers in the motor omnibus services for many years, particularly in the West Country.
In the course of time it was found unsatisfactory from the point of view of

general management for the 'buses and railways to be under the same control, because the railway companies found themselves being accused of running 'bus services for the benefit of the railway, in the same way as they were constantly accused of closing uneconomic canals for the benefit of the railway. These accusations were quite unjustified very often, and it was more convenient to allow 'bus companies to be run by people who ran 'buses and at the same time to maintain a share interest in those 'buses so that the railway companies would know what was going on. The railway companies did that long before the war and they divested themselves of their majority interest in the 'bus services. If my right hon. Friend is going to follow railway precedent, that is what he ought to follow in this case.

Mr. Mitchison: I understood the hon. Member to say that the Great Western Railway Company developed, as I believe it did, these 'bus services. Does he realise that at that time the company controlled the 'bus services and that this Clause would prevent the Commission from doing exactly what the Great Western Railway were able to do and did to everyone's advantage?

Mr. Wilson: No. The hon. and learned Member has not listened to what I have been saying. I said that the old railway companies, and particularly the Great Western Railway Company, were pioneers of 'bus services but that over the years they found that the position was unsatisfactory and so they gave up a 50 per cent. interest in their 'bus services, and that is exactly what this Clause enables the B.T.C. to do now. If we want to follow the precedent of what happened in the old railway companies this is a very good precedent to follow.
Incidentally, I think this is the reason why a large number of 'bus drivers are members of the N.U.R. and not of the Transport and General Workers' Union—because the companies in which they serve were originally companies controlled by the railway companies and the men were railway servants. If this railway control of 'bus services was found unsuitable in those days, it might very well be found unsuitable now. I have gone into this matter very closely and I make it my business to keep in contact with all sorts of organisations, official and unofficial, which take an interest in


transport on land, sea or air. Far from satisfying everybody, this is a very modest Clause and many people would like to see it go a great deal further. I do not think that there is any ground at all for the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) for the way in which he moved the Amendment, and even though I am not able to accept it I can promise him slightly more favourable treatment when he moves the subsequent Amendment to which he has referred. But in order to keep the two issues distinct, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said that they were, although they intrude on each other, I will not make any definite reference to the second Amendment now.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me why we propose to restrict the Commission's passenger undertakings in a way in which the old railway undertakings were never circumscribed. I am advised that there were all sorts of regulations which hedged round the freedom of the railway companies in this field and which deprived them of that degree of freedom to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, so that they did not go as far into that business as otherwise they would have done. I do not develop that point or give a great deal of reliance on it. The real answer is that the scope of the Commission's interest in passenger undertakings has enormously outstripped the holdings which the old railway companies enjoyed.
We discussed this matter on the evening of 10th December last, and I said on that occasion:
I will not weary the Committee with figures, but in 1948, which is the first full year of the Commission's activity in this field of road passenger service they acquired the remaining half interest in the Tilling group which was still privately owned …
At the end of the year their interest in road passenger services amounted to £31 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 594.]
As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South on 10th December, their investment is now some £50 million.
So the matter has an altogether different complexion from what it had before. If we are right, as we believe that we are, in our view on monopoly on road haulage, why should we not take steps to protect' the public interest and to equip the Minister with powers that may be necessary in this field of passenger service as well? On 10th December the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) reproved me for quoting from a newspaper rather than from the Commission's own Report, and in the hurly-burly of discussion there appeared to be at first sight a certain inconsistency in the figures which were quoted.
I am glad to say that exhaustive investigations have shown that we were both right. As I indicated, with the exception of the Midland Red, all the shares were ordinary shares, and in all the companies which I mentioned, B.T.C. had a holding of ordinary shares equal to the holding of B.E.T. I am glad to say that there is no inconsistency between what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said and what I said in that field.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South asked why it is necessary to equip us with this power and what we propose to do about it. We feel it necessary because in certain parts of the country the Commission are becoming almost the only providers of passenger services. We believe that this is wrong. I am not going into the vexed question of London Transport Executive activities. We have Amendments down on the Order Paper on that subject on Clauses which we shall consider later, and one in particular on Clause 22 on which I hope we shall have a profitable discussion.
But I think we would all agree that, while London may well be a special case, it is a good thing that the public as a whole elsewhere should have a right to choose the form of passenger transport services which they prefer, and that any undue accumulation in the hands of any one body is to be deprecated. I apply that equally to a private company as to a public company. We have said that we take these powers and would not propose to use them until—

Mr. H. Morrison: I was going to submit in the case of British Electric Traction that there were areas in which they had complete monopoly. If the Minister


takes this view, which I understand but with which I do not altogether agree, can he tell us why he is taking powers to enable a private company to have a monopoly over a region?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not possible for a private company outside London to get an absolute monopoly by statute as is the case in the London Transport special area. In the London Transport special area they are protected by statute and no one can come in. I do not deny that over a great many areas where private companies have for long had the main control it would be extraordinarily difficult for people to come into the business; but they are still free to do so. That is the difference between the two illustrations.
I said previously that these powers were being taken to be used only if the Government felt it necessary to use them in the light of the report which they will be receiving from the Gerald Thesiger Committee, which was appointed on 27th October last to make an inquiry into the working of the 1930 Act. I have given a number of reasons why it seemed to us desirable that there should be this inquiry. One of the reasons was the price disparity in many parts of the country—particularly near R.A.F. stations—between the 'bus charges and railway facilities which may be offered. Another reason was the accumulation of what might appear to be predominant holdings in the road passenger undertakings, and the third related to the interpretation of the law with regard to contract carriages.
The position remains exactly as it was. The Thesiger Committee, on which a number of most eminent people are sitting, and where pretty well all those interests which have the right to be represented are represented, is getting on with its work. Sitting on that Committee is Alderman Lyne, former Lord Mayor of Bristol and once Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the Western Area; Sir Ronald Matthews, who needs no introduction to old railwaymen; a former Lord Provost of Aberdeen, Mr. Reid; Mr. Speight. Chairman of the National Road Transport Federation; Mr. Tiffin, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and Mr. F. Williamson, Licensing Authority for Roads Goods Vehicles, North-Western Traffic Area.

I shall be guided very much by what these people say as to the working in practice of the 1930 Act. If they report that some action should be taken to see that the Commission do not have direct or indirect control in this field it would be unfortunate to have to introduce amending legislation later on. It seemed desirable to make this provision in advance.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend is taking permissive powers to enable him to cause the B.T.C. to dispose of any majority shareholdings they may have in public 'bus companies, either directly or indirectly. There was a demand that my right hon. Friend should have gone much further than this and that he should have been required by legislation to see that the Commission disposed of these holdings, because there is very great resentment about the way in which the British Transport Commission wield such a tremendous power in the field of road transport 'buses.
It may be that in another place attempts will be made to harden the legislation which now confronts us. If there are, no doubt we shall look at them when the Amendments return to us; but for the present I think we are satisfied that this Clause is correctly framed.
A great many mis-statements have been made in the country and in the House about the position of the British Electric Traction group of companies and the Transport Commission. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) spent a long time in Committee detailing a whole series of companies which, he sought to convey to the Committee, were monopolies of the B.E.T. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), the actual position now, as it was then, is that the holdings of British Electric Traction group of companies and the Transport Commission are identical.
There is no monopoly control in the series of companies listed by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. His list began with the Aldershot and District Traction Company and continued with the Birmingham Motor Bus Company; the South Oxford Motor Bus Service, Limited, and about 15 or 20 other companies. The companies which are con-


trolled directly by B.E.T. form a very select list and, in order that it may be established what companies are included. I propose to list them.
They include the Mexborough and Swinton Traction Company; the Potteries Motor Traction Company; the Rhondda Transport Company and the South Wales Transport Company. Those are the major concerns, with a total of something like 1,000 vehicles. Then there are three minor concerns—J. James, Company and Son, Limited; Afan Transport, Limited and Thomas Brothers (Port Talbot) Limited—with about 70 vehicles between them.
The ratio of the interests directly controlled by the B.E.T. and those controlled by the Transport Commission, either alone or in partnership with B.E.T., is fantastically small. The B.E.T. company on their own control only 1,150 vehicles in all. In equal partnership with the Transport Commission they control 10.370 vehicles; whereas the Commission controls over 24,900 vehicles, including those in the London area. The Provincial and Scottish companies control 14.391 and London Transport, 10.543—a total of 24.934 vehicles.
How long must the House listen to these bogus pleas from hon. Members opposite about the monopoly position of private enterprise in the field of road passenger transport? It is nonsense from beginning to end. It is about time we exploded the views which have been constantly reiterated by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
There are places which are suffering very acutely in the present situation. In my own constituency of South Dorset a branch line has been closed arbitrarily and with inadequate notice by the Transport Commission—a very well-known branch line between Weymouth and Portland of strategic importance. There have been many complaints about it. What is offered in its place? Are private 'bus companies allowed to come in and convey passengers to and fro between Weymouth and the large dockyard of Portland, at fares below those that were charged on the abandoned branch line? Not a bit. The only interest that is

allowed to come into the field because of the licensing position and the monopolies set-up is the local 'bus company—one of the group dominated by the Transport Commission—in the hands of Dorset Motor Services, Limited.
When these 'bus companies come in, do they provide a service at a lower price than was charged by the branch line railways? Not a bit. People have to pay one-third or half as much again. These are the things which should be looked into by the committee which has been established by my right hon. Friend. It is a position which should be rectified and, if it is not rectified here, the legislation may have to be hardened in another place.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 24, line 35, at the end to insert:
Provided that the securities to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate.
The Government have us absolutely by the throat in these discussions. It is possible for their supporters to get up and talk, however irrelevantly they may speak and however inaccurate may be their statements, and for us not to reply if we have a later Amendment upon which we wish to concentrate.
I say that only by way of preface, because I should not like it to be thought that I accepted anything that was said by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) as representing the position of the British Electric Traction Company. I despair of ever educating him. For the Minister I have considerable hope, because he has shown that he is ready and quick to learn. But I cannot give the noble Lord such a good report at the end of the term. Nevertheless, as it is the Minister who is important in this connection, thank goodness, and not the Chairman of the Conservative Party Transport Committee, I still entertain the hope that we may get enlightenment on some of these matters.
I ask the Minister why he is taking powers in relation to the Transport Commission that he consistently refuses to take in connection with the British Electric Traction Company or their subsidiaries who, by whatever name, do not smell as sweet? The iron hand is hidden


in the velvet glove in the long list of 'bus companies which my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) read out during the Committee stage. I would put it to the Minister that under the licensing laws—which he understands, but to which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South has never applied his mind—it could, and does, happen that the Transport Commission's licensing position in one area is precisely the same as is that of the Electric Traction Company in another area.
They are both subject to the same licensing laws. The Transport Commission, on behalf of its subsidiary companies, has to get licences for its vehicles. The Traction Company, on behalf of its subsidiary companies, has to get licences on behalf of its vehicles. So the same degree of monopoly, whether it be great or small, applies both to the Traction Company's companies and to the Commission's companies. Is that disputed by the noble Lord? I think not.

Sir Herbert Williams: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I take no account of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who has just entered the Chamber, and to whom I would not dream of giving way on this Amendment. He has been here only two minutes and has not listened to this debate at all.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman made a statement which is inaccurate.

Mr. Callaghan: These are facts which we are now discussing. We are not in the realms of fantasy into which the hon. Member for Croydon, East would like to lead me.

Mr. G. Wilson: In Cornwall, both the 'bus company and railway company are 100 per cent. owned by the Transport Commission. They were an ex-Tilling company. There can be no transport monopoly, except in the case of the Commission, as the B.E.T. do not own railways.

Mr. Callaghan: I follow that, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree when I say that licensing obligations laid upon any company, whether it be nationalised or not, are the same.

Sir H. Williams: No.

Mr. Callaghan: That is the point I am adhering to.

Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Member permit me—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not. I am not usually reluctant to give way, but I see no reason why I should give way to an hon. Gentleman who walks into the Chamber and, within 30 seconds, expects to take part in the debate. I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Croydon, East, but I am ready to give way to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) or anyone else taking an intelligent interest in our discussion.
I do not think that the Minister is unfavourably inclined to the wording of this Amendment. Indeed, I should be surprised if he were, considering its origin. If I may let the House into a secret, we put down an Amendment which did not seem to find favour with the Minister, and he suggested to us a form of words not very dissimilar from those which now appear on the Order Paper. We are, by this Amendment, trying to make certain that the Minister shall not require the Transport Commission to dispose of all the shares in a company, and so prevent them from having even a minority interest.
5.15 p.m.
We should like to see them have a majority interest in a great many of these companies. That is our ideal, and I give fair warning that that is the position we shall return to as soon as we are able to do so. In the meantime, we must make the best of the situation as we find it and hope that the Minister will allow the Transport Commission to have a minority shareholding in these companies so that they may draw some revenue from them.
If I am asked the justification for that, I would say that if the railways are to close a branch line which is making a loss because it is the public interest that it should be closed, and a more modern form of 'bus transport take its place, there would be no attraction to the railway to do so unless they could feel that they would still get additional revenue from some other direction. If, by virtue of their minority shareholding in one of these companies, they could be


certain of getting some revenue, it would seem to follow that they would be more favourably inclined to look into the matter of closing down a branch line in order that people might be better served by other transport.
It is for that reason that we move this Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I would remind the House that we have to complete this part of the Bill by 5.30 p.m. which is the reason we did not divide the House on the two previous Amendments. I therefore trust that we shall be able to complete our discussion by that time.

Mr. A. Hargreaves (Carlisle): I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Braithwaite: I hope that my few remarks will have a soothing effect upon the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but I must spend a moment on his King Charles's head, which has crept once again into our discussions, namely, the B.E.T. The short answer to the two main points he made are these. First, the Commission has control of rail as well as road, thereby constituting a monopoly, whereas the B.E.T. are in no such position. Secondly, so far as the licensing point is concerned, I think the hon. Gentleman will concede that the railways would not oppose an application from the Transport Commission for these road services, but if the application were made by a private operator they most certainly would.
In moving the previous Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) made it clear that if the Opposition could not get that Amendment, this would be a second best, My right hon. Friend hinted, and so did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that it might find favour with us, which it does. It seeks to ensure that the Commission can only be directed to dispose of such value of securities as are necessary to remove control. This was already the purpose of the subsection. It would, therefore, be possible to argue that this Amendment is redundant, but there was come discussion in Committee and we felt the point needed clarifying. As, in any case, it was our intention, and as this Amendment merely underlines it, and in view of the time, I am only too pleased to accept it.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is not very good mannered when someone seeks to intervene who, according to him, has listened merely to his speech and not the speeches of other people, made a statement that the two bodies were in exactly the same position. I happen to be concerned with the area run by the London Passenger Executive—I think that is what they call themselves now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Transport."]—the London Transport Executive. Hon. Members opposite are, by those interruptions, merely depriving themselves of the opportunity to speak.
I happen to live in the area which used to be the London Passenger Transport area. When another operator wanted to start a service, it was not merely a question of going to the Commission, the original licensing officer—they change their names so quickly but he also had to get the permission of that body as well. In other words, there was a complete barrier to starting a 'bus service in London, imposed by an institution which was nationalised in 1933. I opposed that Bill at all stages. I knew that it would give us a worse service in London and in my constituency than we enjoyed before.
When the hon. Member was making his statement, and was being totally inaccurate, I wanted to point out the extent of his error, and because he would not let me point it out then I am pointing it out now in greater detail than I should have done but for his bad manners in not giving way when I asked him. It is all very well, but these smart Alecs from South Wales ought to be more careful about people from North Wales. There should be proper reciprocity and if the hon. Gentleman would extend a little courtesy to other hon. Members he would get far more consideration.

Mr. H. Morrison: We are much obliged to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting this Amendment. It does not fully satisfy us, and if it is rather quaint that we on this side should be moving an Amendment to prevent a public authority from having a majority control, it does at any rate give it power to have up to an) minority holding, and we are obliged to the Government for accepting it.
I would only say to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that


we have not been discussing London in this respect. It is a totally different proposition. We have been discussing transport outside the London passenger area.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17.—(TRADE HARBOURS AND PORT FACILITIES.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 25, line 1. after "(2)," to insert:
Save with the consent of the Minister.
This Clause relates to trade harbours and port facilities. I must say in all honesty to the Minister that we are moving this Amendment not for the object of getting the words included in the Bill but because we want to hear from the Minister what his intentions are on this Clause. The only way in which we can do that on Report stage is by proposing words in this way. As the Clause came under the Guillotine during the Committee stage, we thought it might provide a useful opportunity for the Minister to say something about it if we moved an Amendment now. If the Minister is ready to do so now, I shall gladly resume my seat straight away.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington): I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As, I think, those hon. Members who have followed this Bill through its various stages, for several months now, will know, this particular proposal was, in fact, in the White Paper, and in that White Paper, which was issued on the day I was appointed Minister, it was said—and I think it was a very good decision—that there should he a limit put on the Commission's interests—future interests—in trade harbours and port facilities.
Indeed, I suspect that had the late Administration continued undefeated at the last General Election they would not themselves have taken any very different action from this, for it was to them that all the protests went—to the late Labour Government—from the Hartlepools, with great vigour; from the Clyde, with great vigour; with less vigour, but still emphatically, from Aberdeen. Great objection was taken to proposals for schemes for running trade harbours by the Commission.
Now, under these proposals the Commission would be limited, as is shown in

subsection (2, a), to those trade harbours and port facilities that they were, in fact, providing at harbours in 1952 on the first day of July, or, as stated in subsection (2, b)
they had, on the said first day of July, power, otherwise than by reason only of section two of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide port facilities in that place.
Those words would enable them, if they provided any one of the port facilities on the appropriate date, to provide all other port facilities at the same port; but we do not feel that their rights should be extended beyond this.
There is a well recognised Parliamentary procedure if the Commission want to extend their powers in a field of this kind, They are fully open to promote a Private Bill, to come before Parliament, as the old railway companies had to do when they wanted to extend their operations—and many and lengthy were the debates when the old railway companies did so. The Commission themselves have recently announced their intention of promoting a Private Bill, in which, I gather, some of my hon. Friends are showing a lively interest and the same procedure would be fully open to them. They would have to ask the Minister under Section 9 of the 1947 Act, but I have no doubt that, if the Commission put up a good prima facie case, that permission would probably be forthcoming. Subject to this, they would be free to promote a Private Bill.
This appears to us to be the proper way in which any extension of their powers in this field should be obtained, for, after all, at present they have trade harbours, and are providing harbour facilities at a very considerable number of harbours, and I think it is important that in this field, as in others, the element of competition should be preserved.

Mr. Callaghan: May I, with the leave of the House, ask the Minister whether it is his full intention to preserve the Docks Executive as it exists at the present time in order that the voices of those ports which are now under the control of the British Transport Commission should be heard in competition with the other facilities at harbours the Commission own? We on this side of the House feel that the Docks Executive is serving a most valuable purpose, and it would be, in our view, a retrograde step if it were to disappear. We should therefore like to have


an assurance that it is the Minister's intention to keep it.
As to the Clause, which we do not really like, may I ask the Minister whether he is proposing to take any steps himself in relation, for example, to the Clyde, where there has been a longstanding report and a considerable viewpoint, upon which I do not express an opinion at the moment, that there should be a closer affiliation between trade harbours and the Clyde? That report has never been acted upon. As I say, I do not express a view upon it. If the Minister has it in front of him, I should like to know whether he has the intention of doing anything about that matter, as it is now removed by this Clause—or will be—from the sphere of the Transport Commission's interests.

Mr. Hargreaves: Would the Minister, at the same time, answer this question upon the same subject? I take it that the Clause does not in any way intend to restrict the activities of the Commission in the ports where the Commission are providing port facilities, as well as statutory authorities providing similar facilities in the same ports? My hon. Friend mentioned one instance, but there are others where investigations over the last one or two years have put up schemes for closer co-operation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) this assurance. Under this Clause, if the Commission are providing facilities they can continue to provide them or any other facilities in those ports.
As to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), we gave an assurance during the Committee stage that until the Commission recommended another scheme, they would administer docks and harbours until that scheme was produced. Nonetheless, there is no intention of the Government's sanctioning docks and harbours passing under direct railway control. Because of that, I think, there is greater freedom for charging on the railways, on which, I think, the House is largely united. The report on the Clyde was presented on 5th October, 1951. The present Government came into office in November, 1951. so if there are any points on that report in which the hon.

Gentleman is interested I would point out to him that it was presented to his Minister, when, I think, he was Parliamentary Secretary. I should be delighted on another occasion to go over it with him.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 18.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CHARGES SCHEMES.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: I beg to move, in page 25, line 14, at the end. to insert:
(b) railway tolls, that is to say, charges for the use of the railways of the Commission by traffic drawn by engines not belonging to the Commission.
It is a simple point which this Amendments seeks to cover. In the earliest days of their inception, the Railway Companies were put in the same position as those operating canals and providers of tracks, whether solid or liquid. It was only having provided a railway track or canal, that they were in a position to charge tolls, and a considerable time elapsed before they also became carriers. It would appear that there are now only a few cases where privately owned locomotives run over the Commission's track, but some cases do exist, for instance, where works are divided into sections and situated adjacent to one another on the Commission's railway line.
Under such conditions tolls are strictly chargeable. It may well be that there is an obscure statute covering such tolls, and it seemed to us desirable to provide for their being covered by a charges scheme which would override such legislation. I hope that the House will see that this is merely a tidying up process and will agree to the Amendment being inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Ernest Davies: When I first saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, I had an awful feeling that the Minister was carrying his desire for competition a little far, and that he was going to encourage the private ownership of railway engines and trains with competition on railway tracks. But in view of the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to us, the position is quite clear and I think we can agree on this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 26, line 8, to leave out from "aforesaid," to "on," in line 10, and to insert:
and subject to the provisions of this Act, secure that the charges to be made are left to the Commission's discretion and that no conditions or limitations are imposed.
This Amendment also is one which will meet with general agreement. It is to make an agreed intention clear. The Clause as drafted says that the Transport Tribunal
shall, save as aforesaid, leave the charges"—
the important word is "leave"—
to be made to the Commission's discretion without imposing"—
and that is another important word—
conditions or limitations on that discretion.
Research has shown my advisers that there may be restrictions already in existence, and the object of this Amendment is to secure that there will be a duty on the Tribunal to secure that the scheme, when submitted, overrides these restrictions. This is in tune with the general desire to make a greater freedom for the railways effective, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Captain Robert Ryder: Before we pass this Amendment which, as far as I can see, more or less prohibits the Tribunal from imposing any limitations, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered the special position of the London area, which suffers very many disadvantages.
The area served by the London Transport Executive is extensive and congested and is unlike any other part of the country. By its very nature transport within that area is bound to be costly, and people working in London have to spend a far higher proportion of their family budget in travelling to and from their places of work than is the case with the workers in any other part of the land. By virtue of the congestion they have to get up earlier in the morning and they get back later at night, so that they suffer from severe disadvantages. I am wondering whether some sort of protection is not desirable for those working in this area.
The second point which is peculiar to the London area is that the London Transport Executive carries no freight. In the rest of the country when the cost

of railway transport is considered it can often be and, in fact, is offset by imposing increased charges on freight. An unremunerative branch line can receive a hidden subsidy by charges on freight. The Londoner, who may have to pay extra freight on his coal delivery, is in fact being asked to subsidise some unremunerative branch line in the West Country from which he gets no benefit. That is the second reason I suggest that London should receive some special consideration, even at this late hour.
The third reason which I wish to advance is that London's traffic, unlike almost any other part of the country, is carried on by a concern which has a complete monopoly in passenger traffic within that area. Whether it is due to this or to other causes, the fact is that since the Transport Commission acquired a London monopoly it has had to call for greatly increased charges. I have tried to get figures to find out the extent of this, but they are difficult to get. According to my calculations—and I would welcome a check on this from the Minister—since London transport was placed under the Transport Commission the average increase in fares amounts to something like 40 per cent. whereas in the rest of the country it is something like 25 per cent.
If that is the case, it surely shows that Londoners, under this arrangement, are placed at a very severe disadvantage, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will seriously consider the disadvantageous position in which Londoners are placed, and, if he wishes to proceed with this particular Amendment, consider some other means by which the Londoners can be protected?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) has raised this point, because it gives me an opportunity of clearing myself before my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Clause to give freedom to the railways, deals almost entirely with merchandise, as does Clause 19. So do Clauses 20 and 22, but the latter provides for both passenger and freight temporary increases, and there are Amendments down on that. This Clause uses the word "passenger," in line 13, but it very largely applies to merchandise.
The situation is that the Clause as drafted provides, in paragraph (d), that the Tribunal:
shall, save as aforesaid, leave the charges to be made to the Commission's discretion without imposing conditions or limitations on that discretion.
The House has already passed the Clause in Committee with the words "save as aforesaid," and that "aforesaid" deals with maximum charges. The procedure which exists today is in no way altered by this Clause or subsection. The Commission would put forward from time to time, as they are doing now, a passengers' charges scheme. Under this Clause, the Tribunal will agree on the maximum charges which is the "aforesaid" referred to.
The whole purpose of the Amendment is this. There may be some restrictions which were already in existence in some old and very obscure legislation, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden that they have no possible bearing on the London travelling public. The Commission are already protected against the Tribunal imposing a restriction on the maximum charges, and the whole purpose of this modest Amendment is to allow for those restrictions, if there are any, that may already be in existence.
I shall welcome the chance later, when the Amendments are called, to deal with the passenger position in London, because I appreciate the natural anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, lest, in giving a new freedom to the Transport Commission in regard to merchandise increases to meet costs, it may be thought that London may be unduly prejudiced, and I have taken steps which I think ought to protect the London travelling public in that field, not that I think these steps are by any means essential because I feel that the good sense of the Commission and the wisdom of the Tribunal would in themselves protect the London travelling public from any unreasonable increase; but, none the less, I think that it is important to get this quite clear, and I hope to have a chance on the later Clauses to deal with that matter, and, if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) is called, to deal with it in a few moments.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 27, line 46, to leave out from "Commission," to the end of line 4, on page 28. and to insert:
or, so far as the enactments mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection are concerned; to any act on omission of the Commissions.
(2) Section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921 (which contain provisions for the protection of coastwise shipping and the interests of canals), shall have effect in relation to charges made by the Commission subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act (Modifications and extensions of section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921) being provisions which amongst other things—

(a) apply section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to all charges made or proposed to be made by the Commission for the carriage of merchandise by railway other than standard charges and maximum charges, extend it so that it applies with modifications to harbour authorities as well as to coastwise shipping and provide for an expedited procedure under it in certain cases;
(b) apply section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921. to all charges made or proposed to be made by the Commission for the carriage of merchandise by railway other than standard charges and maximum charges and extend it so that it applies to canal carriers as well as to canals,

and section thirty of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (which contains provisions for the protection of harbour authorities), shall not apply to any charges made by the Commission or to any other act or omission of the Commission.
(3) As soon as a charges scheme comes into force with respect to charges for the carriage of merchandise by railway, the provisions of Part III of the Railways Act, 1921 (except sections twenty to twenty-six, thirty-nine and fifty-six), shall not apply to the Commission or to any charges made by the Commission.
I understood, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) in page 26, line 23, was to be called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Originally, it was to be called, but it is not now selected.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I am entering into a rather lengthy speech. and I must apologise to the House for this necessity, but the Amendments which stand in my name to Clause 19 are made necessary by a number of undertakings which I gave in Committee.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that any alterations to the very old railway charges structure in regard to merchandise in Great Britain involve a great deal of highly technical amendments of the law. I have quoted on Committee stage and on the Second Reading of the Bill a large number of Acts of Parliament which are involved, and I have been a little surprised at the comparative simplicity with which these very considerable Amendments have been made. I should like to express my appreciation, as I am sure the Opposition would have done if they had been responsible for these Amendments, to the draftsmen who have found it possible to do this at very great speed and under extreme pressure.
I should like to ask whether I am in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in moving this Amendment and also all the other Amendments that stand in my name on this Clause, and then moving the Amendment to Clause 34, page 40, line 40, which is linked to this Amendment and also the new Schedule.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I can understand that it might be convenient for us to discuss these Amendments together, but am I right in thinking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it will not be possible for the Minister to move them until we get to them on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so, but they can be discussed together, and when we come to them, we will put them in due course.

Mr. Callaghan: The only point on that is that there are two Amendments—one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), to which the Minister has put his name, in page 38, line 14, and the one in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice)—page 38, line 8—which in some ways have, I think, relationship to the Schedule which the Minister wishes to discuss now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for then, of course, the Minister's Amendment would be called on its own.

Mr. Callaghan: That was our understanding on the assumption that the Min-

ister's two Amendments to Clause 29 and Clause 34 were going to be called and discussed at that time. We would like to ask, even though the discussion will now trespass and certainly entrench on the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, that we should still have an opportunity of moving the Amendment to Clause 29 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend when the time comes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity of moving that when the time comes, provided that the Guillotine does not upset the plan.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: Is it now suggested that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend—Clause 29, page 38, line 8—and the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend—Clause 29, page 38, line 14—should be brought within the scope of this discussion?

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to hear the views of the Minister on this because I do not know what speech he is going to make. But it seems to me that it is going to be rather difficult for him to make a speech which will not challenge the two Amendments.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not ask to be allowed to consider those two Amendments at the same time. There may be a slanting reference to them, but I think it proper to leave the discussion of these two Amendments until they are reached in the normal course of events.
As this is a complicated matter, I have tried by the issue of an explanatory memorandum to as many hon. Members as I was able to contact in the time, to make it slightly easier for hon. Members to follow this matter, and I hope that I shall be as clear as my explanatory memorandum, although I think that is rather an optimistic assumption.
The first two Amendments to Clause 19, the Amendment I have moved and the Amendment, in page 28, line 17, leave out from first "of," to end of line 26, and insert
section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921, and the Schedule to this


Act (Modifications and extensions of section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921).
Notwithstanding anything in section fifty-seven of the Railways Act, 1921, the charges provided for by any agreement made under this subsection shall not be deemed to be exceptional charges within the meaning of Part III of that Act, and the expression 'exceptional rates' in the said Part III shall be construed accordingly,",
deal with three points. In the first case they make it clear that existing enactments relating to other forms of undue preference, other than by way of charges, are no longer to apply to the Commission. Hon. Members will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1952, in column 1542, that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) raised this specific point with me. I had a discussion with him afterwards, and as a result of this we have moved this Amendment.
The other forms of undue preference may not seem anything like as important as charges—dealing with preferential loading and unloading and matters of that kind—but nonetheless, when we are making a sweep of legislation in which we think a breath of fresh air is long overdue, it is important that we should not neglect this possibility. That is the first point with regard to the first part of the first Amendment.
The second part—paragraph 2 of the first Amendment—gives effect to two undertakings which I gave on the Committee stage. The first undertaking will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1952, column 1529, which deals with the undertaking that I gave to consider the redrafting altogether of Clause 21, so as to preserve the protection given to coastal shipping, and in the course of that reconsideration, to consider also the position of harbour authorities. We think we have effectively met this in the second part of our first Amendment. Hon. Members will notice that there is an Amendment on the Order Paper in my name to leave out Clause 21, and that also, of course, should be borne in mind while we are making up our mind on these various Amendments. I shall come later to exactly how we think we have met the needs and anxieties of coastal shipping and harbour authorities.
The second intention I announced in the House on that occasion was not to proceed with that part of Clause 21 which gave protection to road hauliers against unduly low charges by the Commission. This part of the proposals in the original Bill was very much condemned from the Opposition benches, and found, I am bound to say on consideration, no support on Government benches either. It appeared to be taking away with one hand what was being given to the railways competitively with the other. I do not think it had that effect, but, nonetheless, I was glad when public opinion as represented in this House did not feel that this particular protection was necessary, and so we have decided to do away with it.
As hon. Members may remember, Clause 21 as originally drafted allowed coastal shipping, harbour authorities and road hauliers to challenge the rates of the Commission on the ground that they were uneconomic and that if persisted in for a long time they would cause loss to the Commission and were designed to eliminate competition. This appeared to be unduly restrictive on the Commission in their relation to road hauliers, and on coastal shipping if they had to prove these very difficult facts before they could get any protection. We think we have found a way to meet justice all round.
Since the Committee stage, I have had many talks with road hauliers, the Road Haulage Association, the Commission and the coastal shipping authorities, and indeed there has been a good deal of conversation and correspondence also with the harbour authorities. I should like to thank all these bodies for the help they have given, and though I do not commit any of the representative organisations to the precise way in which these Clauses are being amended, I think it fair to say that there is very general agreement between the Commission, coastal shipping, the harbour authorities and the road hauliers over the proposals I now make.
With regard to Clause 21, what we are doing with these Amendments is, first, to omit the hauliers' right to complain under Clause 21, and then the harbour authorities' right to complain of charges for port facilities, and lastly to limit their right to complaints about railway merchandise charges made in respect of


the carriage to and from ports where the Commission themselves provide the port facilities.
I think hon. Members will see the justice of that because it might otherwise be thought to put a temptation in the way of the Commission to give facilities to their own particular traffic to the detriment of other traffic. This left the position of coastal shipping not wholly settled. I have always been anxious that there should be no avoidable difficulty for this great British interest, confronted as they are with many difficulties anyhow, and I was most anxious that the effect of the Bill, which will give a wide measure of competition to road hauliers and generally stimulate the flow of traffic, should not have a harmful result to quite the extent some had feared. Therefore we have amended the coastal shipping provisions of Clause 21 by providing that Section 39 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, should be adapted and extended to meet the new conditions which will be created by this Bill.
The Amendments in this field and the new Schedule accordingly provide that Section 39 of the 1933 Act shall apply to all charges made or proposed to be made by the Commission for the carriage of goods by rail other than standard or maximum charges, and not merely as now to exceptional rates or agreed charges, coastwise shipping will have a series of protective measures. They will have the right as at present to represent that a charge places coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage, or that the charges of the Commission are inadequate, having regard to the cost of affording the services. From now on they will have the protection of the amended and extended provisions of Section 39 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
If I am asked more about this particular point, I will attempt to deal with it in question and answer afterwards so as not to interrupt the flow of what I am saying. We are making provisions to meet certain circumstances which may confront coastal shipping in this field, provisions roughly corresponding to those we are making with regard to the Commission under Clause 22 in regard to merchandise, though, of course, the circumstances are different in this field.
Provision is also made for an expedited procedure where a representation is made

wholly or partly on the ground that the charges in question place coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage. 1n such a case, if the Tribunal are of opinion that a reasonable case has been made out they may quickly and without publication or holding a public inquiry authorise an increase after consultation with the Commission. As soon as they have taken that action they must publish to traders and to others what they have done. They have got to be convinced that the charges are undue to such an extent as to prejudice the national interest, and traders will have an opportunity of complaining. Though the changes will come into operation straight away, traders will have an opportunity of complaining for a period of one month after which the Tribunal can either revoke or amend the order, when, after there has been a full inquiry, which traders are entitled to have, they make up their minds on a more final settlement.
We have also made special provisions in the case where there are, as there often are, agreements in writing. Under Clause 19 (2), for a period of not less than three months—

Mr. Callaghan: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind going a little slower because it is awfully difficult to follow what he is saying.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry. I am afraid that if I went at the speed which the subject deserves and which would still be comprehensible to everybody I might unduly detain the House, but I will try to go a good deal slower now.
As I said, we are also anxious to provide protection where there has been written agreement, and under the Amendment as submitted protection has been given where there is such a written agreement which provides that for a period of not less than three months or for a period determinable by not less than three months' notice, certain charges shall operate or shall not be determined without three months' notice. In so far as any proposal made to the Tribunal would affect this agreement, the order is not to operate until one month after the publication of the order, and if a trader who is a party then objects to any part of the order, then that part of the order


cannot operate until he has had an opportunity of putting his point of view. But if a trader does not object, then it can come into operation.
I believe this meets the view of those deeply concerned with the future prosperity of British coastal shipping. I know it largely commends itself to the friends and colleagues of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) who has been most helpful all through our discussions in regard to the need to give particular protection to coastal shipping. In addition, I am glad to be able to inform the House that the British Transport Commission have now formally given an assurance to the Chamber of Shipping that in the formulation of any future charges schemes for merchandise traffic they will be glad to consult with the representatives of coastal shipping in the same way as in the past, and to give them a reasonable opportunity of considering the effect of the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Competition."] Hon. Members say "Competition." I think they will find that the difficulties in which coastal shipping is placed put it in rather a different position from any other operator. If they had the same close contact with the Commission that I have had they would certainly find that at no stage have they shown any anxiety to rid themselves of any obligations towards the great British coastal shipping interest.
6.0 p.m.
There remain just three other points to which I ought to draw the attention of the House. One relates to the position of the harbour authorities. Section 39 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, as we have adapted and extended it for coastal shipping, applies to harbour authorities as well, with the limitation that complaint can only be made about charges for the carriage of goods by rail to and from 'harbours where the Commission provides the port facilities. In Committee I was also asked a question by one of my hon. Friends about canals and canal carriers. Section 39 of the Railways Act, 1921, which provides for protection from exceptional rates and agreed charges, is now being extended to apply to all other charges by rail other than standard and maximum charges. I think that meets the main fear

of the canals and canal carriers as to the possibilities of greater freedom to the Commission in merchandise freight charges and their possible effect on canals and canal carriers.
The third part of this Amendment, which is really the governing Amendment throughout, deals with Part III of the Railways Act, 1921. This third part of the Amendment provides that as soon as a merchandise charges scheme is brought into operation the provisions of Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, with certain exceptions, shall not apply to the Commission. Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, governs the system of standard and exceptional charges introduced by the 1921 Act. As so many of the restrictions continued through that Act from earlier days are now being lifted, that Part is not generally applicable to the circumstances of today. There are certain provisions in that Part—for example, the one dealing with the procedure of the Transport Tribunal—which we want to preserve, and that accounts for the limitations on the abolition of Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, which we found it necessary to insert.
Finally, I should like to say that I recognise that, even if I had made my observations at a very slow, pedestrian speed, they would still demand considerable powers of absorption, and I can only assure the House that there is nothing of any substance in these proposals which I now put before the House that I did not announce during the Committee stage. and that to the very best of my knowledge they go no further, apart from tidying up here and there, than meeting the points of view that I undertook to meet in Committee, as a result of which I spent a large part of the Christmas Recess in consultation with very important interests. Now I come to the most important interest of all, the House of Commons, and I commend these Amendments to the sympathy of both sides of the House.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Before the Minister sits down, might I ask him one question? Am I right in understanding that these provisions will not mean that coastal shipping will get a protection by the railways having to lift certain rates to a higher figure than they would otherwise do in ordinary competition? If it does that, then the railways will be in an unfair competitive position


with the road haulier who may actually be a third in the triangular situation for that particular traffic.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think it would apply to that. I do not think the road haulier need be particularly anxious about his own level of charges. At a later stage we shall come to tentative proposals—under Clause 29, I think—to identify road hauliers with the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee. I will not anticipate that now.
The main effect of the adaptation and extension of Section 39 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act to coastal shipping is that, instead of having to prove, as under the Bill as originally drafted, that any low charge by the Commission was designed so as to eliminate competition and if proceeded with would cause loss to the Commission, they have only to prove that the railway rates place them at an undue disadvantage and that this is not in the national interest. That also is a formidable undertaking to have to prove, but it is a good deal easier to prove that, than the more cumbersome obligation placed on coastal shipping in Clause 21.
In this matter we must move by stages. Here, undoubtedly, I believe we have found a way of getting justice between coastal shipping and the very powerful British Transport Commission. I do not think that the road haulage industry will be disadvantaged by this.

Mr. Holt: It is the railways.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry that I may not have made it clear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the position of the railways, undoubtedly this might affect a charge that the railways might otherwise have been prepared to offer, but this does broadly represent an agreement that, if it has not been sanctioned, has anyhow the tacit blessing of both sides of this great industry, the Commission and coastal shipping. It seemed to us essential that there should be some protection to coastal shipping; if that protection is to have any reality it must conceivably involve the Commission in not being allowed to charge a low rate which they would otherwise be anxious to charge,

and to that extent it is a restriction on their freedom. I know the hon. Gentleman's. point of view very well, but if we are concerned to preserve British coastal shipping, in peace and war alike, we must run a risk which may not be wholly palatable to the Liberal Party.

Mr. John Hynd: This series of Amendments will, of course, be welcomed on this side of the House, particularly the deletion of Clause 21. The Minister has recalled the protests made from this side of the House, which, incidentally, were not echoed by hon. Members opposite, although hon. Members who might otherwise have intervened on that side are probably complimenting themselves now that they did not put both feet in it when they had the chance. The fact remains that we have eliminated one of the most vicious Clauses, and we compliment the Minister and ourselves on that.
There still remains, in my view, a great deal that the Minister and the Government have to answer for on this part of the Bill. In introducing these rather complicated Amendments, which he elucidated very clearly in the time at his disposal, the Minister apologised for the speed at which he had to present them. He said it would have been better if he could have dealt with them at a speed the subject deserves. He can easily correct that. Indeed, that is one of the main complaints we have made throughout all the stages of this Bill, that the Bill is not getting the attention it deserves. That is not the fault of the Opposition. It is entirely the fault of the Government. What we shall see as a result of the hurried way in which this is being done—and I think this view is shared by all my hon. and right hon. Friends, and by many people in the country—is a garbled Bill which in the end will not be workable and will do untold damage to the transport industry.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has just paid a very courteous tribute to me. I ought to explain that when I said I wished I could have dealt with the matter with the speed that my subject deserved, I referred to my speech tonight. I did not mean that the matter had not been given the most exhaustive examination over many months. In consultation with all the proper authorities we have had a most searching consideration and


reconsideration, and I do not believe that an extension by another six months in the time would have advanced the public interest in the slightest degree.

Mr. J. Hynd: The Minister has said that he was referring to his speech tonight. So was I. I am referring to the speed with which we are having to examine these Clauses, which do not get the consideration they deserve. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the time given to the examination of the Bill as having taken many months, let me remind him that the Bill has only been in existence for two or three weeks. The propositions, in the form of the White Paper and of the first Bill, which took so many months to develop, have been scrapped as the result of public discussion and of criticism in this House. The Measure that we are discussing now has not been under discussion for so many months.
As I look at these Amendments I find that the Minister and his colleagues have put themselves in rather a quandary. We understood that the whole purpose of the Bill was to achieve free competition within the area of transport. Where is the competition in these proposals? According to my reading of the Minister's explanatory memorandum, which he has been good enough to circulate and of which I personally express my appreciation, I find, taking coastwise shipping, that in the event of the Commission's fixing a charge which the coastal shipping companies think is too low—in other words is competitive—they can complain.
Having complained that the Commission is becoming competitive, they can have the support of the Government and of the tribunal in order to vary, or even to revoke, the charge. When that has been done, if the trader complains that the charge has been put up too high, the tribunal have to meet again, and to consider the matter again from the point of view of the trader. If they are satisfied that the charge is now too high—the charge that they made themselves, having examined all the circumstances on the recommendation of the coastal shipping authorities—they can revoke or vary their previous Order.
Here is a Government who talk about bureaucracy and about committees and tribunals interfering with the free play

of commercial enterprise. It is rather strange that we should hear about the bureaucracy and the red tape which surround nationalised enterprises but find that the Government are tying up private and nationalised enterprises with a complicated scheme of red tape such as we find in this proposal. Why should they not do in this case precisely as was done in regard to Clause 21, delete the proposition altogether?
The Minister said that special conditions applied to coastwise shipping, which is a very valuable aspect of our nationalised industry. There is no doubt at all that we must use to the fullest advantage the facilities that the sea provides. No one would question that, but I do not think that the Minister has justified his case for giving a preferential position to coastwise shipping in this form, involving meetings of tribunals, revocation of Orders, further meetings of tribunals at the behest of someone else and again revocation or variation of the previous Orders, in order to try to find a balance which is not a competitive balance. The tribunals are prevented from being competitive by this very procedure.
6.15 p.m.
What is the position in regard to coastwise shipping? Is it competitive or is it not? Can it compete with the railways or with motor transport. [Interruption.] An hon. Friend says "No." It can compete very advantageously with those services. Most hon. Members who know anything about coastwise shipping are aware of the tremendous advantages of the potato boats from London to Dundee and vice versa. They were able to carry those goods at very much lower rates than were the railways or the inland road services because they had cheaper facilities and there was no need for speed. They did very well with that kind of traffic. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a subsidy."] I am not so sure that they needed a subsidy.
In the Report of the Royal Commission on Transport, published in 1931, dealing with the co-ordination of transport—and not with its disorganisation. which is now the proposition—we find that the Ship-owners' Parliamentary Committee, which I presume consisted of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House —I am sure there were none from this side—with an interest in ship-owning,


presented a memorandum to the Commission. In it they said:
The British shipping industry holds strongly the view that the co-ordination and co-operation that is needed "—
they were in favour of co-ordination and co-operation at that time—
will be best effected through the normal interplay of economic and commercial factors, subject only to such legislative safeguards as may be found absolutely necessary in the public interest.
The memorandum went on:
In its opinion it is of the first importance that the various transport agencies, including shipping, should be allowed to develop without preferential treatment or differentiation as between one another.
Why not? The arguments of the Minister and his colleagues on that side of the House throughout the proceedings on the Bill have been based on the merits of fair competition, competition without differentiation, without subsidy and without giving protection to one against another. The whole purpose of the Amendment that we are now discussing is to ensure that the national interest is hamstrung and that the benefits of free competition and protection shall be given only to the champions of private enterprise. In view of the opinions expressed by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, which are in accordance with the views of the Government on all other aspects of the Bill, I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter again and, as he did with Clause 21, to scrap the whole proposition.

Sir L. Ropner: The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has not only displayed lamentable ignorance of the organisation of the shipping industry, but an equally great ignorance of the peculiar difficulties of coastwise shipping. I suggest to him, with due deference, that he should at least know something about the subjects concerning which he intends to address this House.
My right hon. Friend who initiated the debate said that considerable powers of absorption were needed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite before they could fully understand the implications of all that he said on the Amendment which he was moving. Those remarks are equally applicable to hon. Gentlemen on this side. While I have attempted to reprove to some extent the hon. Member who has just sat down, I admit that for

myself I am by no means certain that I understand every application of the Amendment that we are discussing.
Throughout very many weeks, and indeed months, of negotiation the Minister and his advisers have been most helpful, first endeavouring to appreciate, and finally completely appreciating, the special difficulties of coastal shipping. I am not a coastal shipper myself, but I have tried in this House to represent the views of coastal shippers. That section of this great industry is most appreciative of the genuine efforts which the Minister and his advisers have made to meet the special difficulties of this section of the Mercantile Marine.

Mr. H. Hynd: What are the special difficulties of coastal shipping?

Sir L. Ropner: I could spend a great deal of time mentioning the special difficulties, only I do not think that this is the occasion to do so.

Mr. Hargreaves: I want to thank the Minister for taking up the point, which I was unable to develop during the Committee stage, of the incidence of the archaic legislation concerning undue preference. I was on my feet when the Guillotine fell on the discussion of the Clause, and that experience adds point to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). I consider that on all stages of this Bill the House of Commons has been denied the opportunity of giving to the Measure the consideration it deserves. A moment ago the Minister said that he had spent many months in consultation with what he called "all the proper authorities," which apparently excluded hon. Members of this House. Therefore, I ask the Minister to assure the House that in the matter of undue preference the Amendment to insert a definition Clause and this Amendment are linked and that they eliminate the Clauses concerning that archaic legislation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance straight away. This is a tangled mass of legislation from previous years—indeed, it is nearly a century old—but as far as we can see every likely case of undue preference is taken up by the Bill and by the Amendments.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am much obliged to the Minister. With the greatest respect to the House, I want to reiterate the point that these matters deserve the most earnest consideration of hon. Members and that we have been denied that opportunity, yesterday and today, by the limitations of the Guillotine Motion. To add point to the protest made by my right hon. Friend, I analysed the speeches made yesterday and today. There were 14 speeches made from the opposite side of the House on three Amendments, none of which was pressed. Indeed, there was no intention on the part of hon. Gentlemen to press those Amendments to a Division. On the same subjects there were eight speeches from this side of the House.
This definitely limits the opportunity of the Opposition to bring to bear their knowledge of these matters. I am not denying that hon. Members opposite have equal knowledge, but by concentrating on Amendments which they know perfectly well will never be put to the vote, it is possible by means of the Guillotine procedure to ensure that the House shall not discuss Amendments and Clauses which we think all-important.
I was interested to note the view of the Minister in regard to the possible adverse effects of the competition of the Commission upon coastwise shipping services. I have many years' experience of the coastwise railway and road services working jointly in an area. In my view, the danger to coastwise shipping services in certain areas of the country is even greater from the road services than from the rail.
I know the degree of co-operation that existed between rail and coastwise services. For instance, they took advantage of port facilities common to both services and yet, even though they had the advantages of co-operative working, the road services of those days played a great part in creating the difficulties which confronted coastwise shipping and will continue to confront it under this Measure. This Amendment is aimed at the work of the British Transport Commission as though the Commission were the only competitive factor which coastwise services have to meet.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is because Clauses 18 to 23 deal with freeing the Commission from the charges restrictions. It is because of the anxiety caused by

those in coastal shipping circles that this Amendment is necessary. We are not dealing here with road and rail charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we are dealing with the old legislation which has for generations restricted the railways. No doubt the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are appropriate to other occasions. It may well be that coastal shipping difficulties may come through road hauliers, but we have concentrated here on the Commission because it is the Commission we are relieving of their old obligations.

Mr. Hargreaves: I agree that at this stage of the proceedings the Minister has not to take cognisance of the competitive factor as between road and coastwise services. I am merely placing before the House my own experience of co-operation between rail and coastwise shipping and suggesting that the real danger to coastwise shipping services comes not from rail but from road. I am suggesting to the Minister that there is not, in this Amendment or the subsequent one, a vestige of a grasp of that situation, and there is no attempt whatever made to meet it. That is the main point to which my argument is directed, and I think that it is fair and reasonable.
6.30 p.m.
I am not denying, as my experience goes to show, that there can be, as between rail and coastwise shipping, arrangements to their mutual advantage. I pointed to the interchange facilities that affect the conveyance of merchandise by the rail and cross-channel services. I consider that the Minister has completely overlooked the real need there is, while recognising, as we all must, the great importance of coastwise shipping to this country and the need to maintain it at its fullest efficiency, to see that the same efforts as he has made against the British Transport Commission in this connection shall be made against the road services in this country in order to preserve the balance as between the three main factors in the conveyance of merchandise in this country. Indeed, there are four factors if we take into account the degree to which canal traffic still exists in this country.

Mr. Holt: I rise to speak on this subject with some diffidence, because I am well aware that my knowledge of practical matters in relation to coastwise


shipping is by no means what it ought to be. I am quite clear, however, about the principles which I wish to see running through this Bill. The Amendments which have been detailed by the Minister may be all right, but I must say that I am very suspicious. The outcome will largely turn upon the actual interpretation of Section 39 (2, a) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) rather overstated his case when he said that if coastwise shipping suddenly found that the railways had quoted a lower price, that they were competitive, as he put it, they would have the right to complain. Section 39 (2, b) of the 1933 Act states:
are inadequate, having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which they are made or charged.
It seems to me that if the charges of the railways were above their cost, the coastwise shipping would probably get short shift if they applied and said they were being—

Mr. J. Hynd: My hon. Friend has overlooked that we are dealing with a new Transport Bill which specifically provides that the coastal authorities can apply to the Transport Tribunal on the grounds that the railway charges are too competitive—too low.

Mr. Holt: I do, not see those words there.

Mr. Hynd: Oh, yes.

Mr. Holt: What I am concerned about is what will be done under Section 39 (2, a), the words of which are:
place coastal carriers at an undue or unfair advantage;
I agree that under that provision some very undesirable things might happen. A lot has been said as to whether coastal shipping can stand on its own feet against road and rail. I am not in a position to give a view one way or the other. I merely maintain that if some part of coastal shipping cannot stand on its own feet in fair competition, then that part should get out. It is quite wrong, and I suggest against the whole principle of the Bill, that the natural development of transport, whether it be by road, rail, canal or on the sea, should be distorted in any way by one type of transport subsidising another type of transport.
As I understand it, the whole purpose of this Bill is to avoid that kind of thing. I am most concerned to see that it should not happen to coastal shipping. I ask what I asked the Minister in an interruption when the matter came up during the Committee stage, that if some parts of coastal shipping cannot stand up in fair competition with the other transport services, will he not give consideration to whether it is not better, if it is felt that that part of coastal shipping should be kept in being for military, strategic or defence purposes, that it should obtain support from a Vote from the appropriate Government Department and it be made clear that that is a subsidy for strategic purposes? I stress that again, and ask the Minister to consider whether that is not possible and practicable.
I well understand that there may be practical difficulties in administering such a proposal but I should at least like to know that it has been considered and been turned down because it is quite impossible to administer it. if the railways are to be prevented, where they are in competition with coastal shipping, from charging that economic price which they would do in a free market, it will be putting the railways in that area at a disadvantage to the road haulier. The road haulier is to be allowed to charge what he likes and the railway can be made to increase its price and lose even more traffic. Thus it is quite likely that the whole purpose of these Amendments may be frustrated—that the traffic will not go to coastal shipping but will be lost both by the railways and coastal shipping and provide increased traffic on the roads. That is a most important point.
As I said when I began, I feel some diffidence on speaking on this matter. I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to say just what impact this provision will have, whether there will be many cases where the position will arise and whether a substantial amount will be involved. If it means a loss to the Commission of possibly £1,000 here and £1,000 there, it might be said that, taking into consideration their huge turnover, it is not worth bothering about. But if the figure is to run into substantial amounts which may affect considerably the successful working of the new railway system after the passing of this Bill, it is


a matter that needs the closest examination. If the Minister is, as I think he is, unable to answer now, I shall be obliged if he will take the opportunity of doing so on a future occasion.

Mr. H. Hynd: I wish to reinforce as strongly as I can the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), that whereas the shipping companies will be able to complain about competition from the British Transport Commission—the railways—they are apparently not to be allowed to complain about competitive rates from private road hauliers. I think all hon. Members in the House, particularly perhaps the back benchers opposite, will be concerned about that sort of thing.
This is the very negation of competition. If the purposes of the Bill are, as the Minister contends, to provide competition which he thinks would be healthy for industry generally, he is going the wrong way about it by including provisions of this kind. He might have gone further and said that if the coastwise shipping and other people are to be able to complain about competitive rates from the railways the railways should be able to complain about competitive rates in these other forms of transport.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) has left the Chamber, because when he was challenged about his statement that the coastwise shipping people are faced with special difficulties he seemed quite contemptuous about lack of knowledge on this side of the House and refused to go into particulars. I do not think he should have been allowed to get away with it so lightly. What are these special difficulties? Are they financial difficulties?
The last time I interested myself in this matter in the House, I raised the question about heavy subsidies paid to coastal shipping. At that time one company was paying a 15 per cent. dividend plus a 3 per cent. tax-free capital bonus. I protested as vigorously as I could about public money being given by way of subsidy to companies paying heavy dividends. I should be interested to know whether those subsidies are still paid.
If the difficulties with which the companies are faced are not financial, what

are their peculiar difficulties? If they are difficulties of keeping running for strategic and other purposes I would support what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) about enabling them to run by some other method than by forcing other forms of transport in competition with them to increase charges in order to subsidise coastwise shipping in that way.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has been in politics for a long time. I have great respect for his political acumen, but I am very surprised that he should make the elementary mistake, which I thought we had all got over in our early days of propaganda, of assuming that the Conservative Party are in favour of competition. Nothing of the sort, they are in favour of profits and, preferably, the highest profits they can get.

Mr. H. Hynd: I was trying to be persuasive.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that my hon. Friend is a very persuasive man, but he should state the position as we know it to be. The pretext which hon. Members opposite always put forward is that they are interested in competition. That is to disguise the fact that what they want is profits.
This is a most remarkable debate as, apart from the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), we have not had any hon. Member opposite speaking on these Amendments, although a number of hon. Members on this side of the House rose to continue the debate when I rose. What a commentary upon the real attitude of hon. Members opposite towards this question of competition, about which they prate so much. Where is the voice of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is coming soon.

Mr. Callaghan: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord wishes to speak soon. But I understand that the Minister is anxious to get on to Clause 22, on which he has some Amendments. That is a matter on which he must make up his mind. In fact, until I had a go not a single hon. Member opposite showed any


inclination to speak. The truth is that we are now embarked upon a particular facet of transport where competition does not and cannot operate if we are to keep coastwise shipping alive. No one dissents from that; the Minister does not, or he would not be introducing the Amendments now.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said his party piece about how grateful he was to the Minister for all his kindly consideration. What a lot of nonsense! The consideration which is being given to the hon. and gallant Member is this; in the 1947 Act the industry was able to secure an arrangement both with the railways and road hauliers who were nationalised in order to ensure that coastwise shipping was not driven off the sea routes. They were able to do that because the British Transport Commission were charged with the responsibility of preparing charges schemes not only for the railways but also for the roads; that is why. Therefore, agreements entered into by the British Transport Commission with the coastwise shipping interests had the effect of protecting coastwise shipping against both railways and roads. What the hon. and gallant Member has been doing is thanking the Minister for depriving him of the protection which coastwise shipping had under the 1947 Act against the road hauliers.
6.45 p.m.
That seems to me an odd way of conducting one's business. If the hon. and gallant Member were not a supporter of the Minister, I do not think he would have made that speech which was so fulsome in thanks. I do not think the Minister knew what he is being thanked for as the hon. and gallant Member was thanking him for taking away the protection given under the 1947 Act.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) pointed out, there is no provision in this Clause for giving coastwise shipping the same opportunities of protesting against rates being charged by road hauliers as the opportunities they have to protest about rates to be charged by the railways—none at all. So perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, who certainly indicated he did not fully understand and comprehend all this, is beginning to see

that the thanks he rendered to the Minister were slightly too great for the gift which was offered.
The Minister said that he had secured the broad agreement of the road hauliers to this phase of the operations. Of course he has. My word, the road hauliers have a lot to be grateful for in this Bill. In this section they have been removed from the ambit of challenge by the coastwise shipping people and do not have to account to anyone for the rates they are to charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) was quite right when he said that in many ways coastwise shipping interests—I hope the hon. and gallant Member will take note of this—have as much, or more, to fear from road hauliers as from the railways. Yet they have no protection at all against road hauliers.
One of our complaints against this Bill is that it destroys the integration of coastwise shipping with long-distance rail and long-distance road haulage services which is so necessary if all three are to be kept alive. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe was quite right to taunt the Minister with not understanding the real situation and right in asking the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash what the difficulties of coastwise shipping were.
I said in the Second Reading debate that I have no doubt at all that there should be protection for coastwise shipping. On this side of the House we do not have to eat our words when we say this because we do not happen to believe that competition in transport is the right way to get the best service. Hon. Members opposite say that they do believe in it, but when it is put to the test in relation to the position of coastwise shipping, they have to eat their own words. They have to go back on all the propaganda they have put out to the country because, as has been fully exposed from his side of the House, there is no competition in what is proposed in this series of Amendments, or the Clause.
What the Minister is continuing—and in my judgment rightly continuing—is an arrangement under which the railways and coastwise shipping interests get together and decide the proper rates to be charged. That will keep coastwise shipping interests and the companies


alive. There is no competition in rates here. This is an arrangement for charging such a rate as will ensure that one of the partners is not driven out of business. For strategic purposes, because of the national interest and the vital importance of coastwise shipping, we happen to agree with this. Provided hon. Members opposite realise that it cuts clean across the philosophy which they have been expressing in this House, I do not mind. I hope that one day they will wake up and see that what they are prepared to stomach in the relationship between coastwise shipping and the railways is also necessary in the relationship between the railways and road hauliers.

Mr. J. Hynd: And the canals.

Mr. Callaghan: And the canals. But there is no difference in principle at all in the points that we are discussing here. The only difference is that the Conservative Party still do not understand the transport issue. They made ridiculous pledges to the road hauliers which they now feel they are bound to carry out, irrespective of the consequence to the transport system of the country. In so far as these Amendments continue the arrangement that existed between railways and coastwise shipping, we do not wish to dissent from them. What we do dissent from is the fact that road hauliers are left completely outside the field of challenge.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington, who raised the issue, will turn to page 626 of the Order Paper, he will find an Amendment to which we may come later, in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice)—in Clause 29, page 38, line 8—which will put some teeth into the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee and will en able them to make arrangements that might bind the road hauliers. If we can do that, I think we shall have improved the Clause even beyond the improvement that the Minister is effecting at the present time.
I shall not ask my hon. Friends to take this series of Amendments to a Division, so that we may save time and get on to the next series of Amendments. As I have been rather harsh to the Minister, in conclusion I should like to thank him for the circular that he put

out. Unfortunately, some of us had done our homework before we received it, and we had to fathom the Clause without the crib. There is no need for the Minister to accuse himself of being pedestrian in what he utters. I would never accuse him of being pedestrian. I accuse him throughout the whole of this Bill of dangerous driving.

Mr. Braithwaite: The speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) cannot be allowed to pass without some brief comment. The hon. Member complained that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) had delivered himself of what he called a party piece. It is very difficult to satisfy the Opposition during the progress of this Bill.
It is only a few minutes ago that we heard the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) complaining bitterly of the number of speeches made yesterday on this side of the House, which he said grievously handicapped hon. Members opposite in the ammunition which they were eager and anxious to fire at us, although it was not at all obvious during the whole course of the action what the ammunition was. Now the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East complains that my hon. Friends have not participated in the debate on this Amendment, with the one exception of my hon. and gallant Friend. There are means of ascertaining the wishes of the Opposition, and I understood some little time ago that hon. Members opposite wished to get on to Clause 22.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister wants to.

Mr. Braithwaite: I understood that the Opposition also wanted to. It was to that end that I indicated that hon. Members on this side of the House might hold their peace and provide an opportunity for hon. Members opposite to make their speeches so that we could make progress. But it was necessary for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to deliver his party piece before we part from this Amendment. I thought it was a very good party speech. I like it better every time he makes it. He will be word perfect, I have no doubt, before we get to the Third Reading.

Mr. Callaghan: I must challenge the Parliamentary Secretary on this point. I


dissent from the suggestion that I am guilty of tedious repetition. If there is one thing on which I pride myself, it is that I do not have many notes in front of me.

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman is very eloquent. I have never accused him of being tedious; I have accused him of repetition—that is all. I merely wished to explain why my hon. Friends, all of whom had admirable speeches to deliver, were anxious to accommodate the Opposition, because I understood the Opposition wished to discuss Clause 22 before we get to the next Guillotine at half-past seven. I do not wish to stand between the House and Clause 22 any longer, but I cannot allow the speeches of hon. Members opposite to go unchallenged.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 17, leave out from first "of," to end of line 26, and insert:
section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921, and the Schedule to this Act (Modifications and extensions of section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and section thirty-nine of the Railways Act. 1921).
Notwithstanding anything in section fifty-seven of the Railways Act, 1921, the charges provided for by any agreement made under this subsection shall not be deemed to be exceptional charges within the meaning of Part III of that Act, and the expression 'exceptional rates' in the said Part III shall be construed accordingly."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause 21.—(PROTECTION FOR COMPETITORS OF COMMISSION.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 27, leave out Clause 21.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause 22.—(SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR TEMPORARY AUTHORISATION OF INCREASED CHARGES.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 30, line 26, after "may," to insert:
take either or both of the following courses, that is to say—
(i) they may.
I think I should have had something palatable to say to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) if she had been in her place. There is very great need for a headroom Clause to enable the Commission to meet a sudden and often unexpected increase in

costs. Indeed, the Reports of the Commission show this from time to time, and in a recent Report they stress how their inability to meet a sudden increase in costs prevented them from putting money on one side to buy materials before the cost of the materials rose, or to take action which would have been to the advantage of the travelling or commercial public.
As hon. Members are aware, where there is no charges scheme—and there is no charges scheme in the case of merchandise—the Commission go to the Minister of Transport under Section 82 of the Act of 1947, and, if the Minister thinks it expedient, he authorises the Commission to make additional freight charges, but before doing so, of course, he approaches the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal and asks for their advice. This is what happened recently towards the close of last year.
Where there is a charges scheme, as in the case of passengers, Section 82 does not apply. The Minister has here no powers to help the Commission to meet sudden increases in costs. The Commission can only set about meeting their difficulties either by applying for the authorisation of a new scheme or an alteration in the existing scheme. It is through the exercise of their powers in that field that the Tribunal are now considering the increase in passenger fares.
I think that two things are generally conceded—the need for a headroom Clause and, at the same time, the fact that charges schemes should be most carefully, patiently and, indeed, exhaustively examined, whether they are passenger charges schemes or new proposals relating to freight. The practical difficulty that we are up against is how to reconcile these two things.
The purpose of Clause 22 as originally drawn is to give immediate aid, to be confirmed, amended or revoked later on after a lengthy inquiry. But, as the House will realise if they look at Clause 22 (2), in no case should the Amendment be such as would, in the opinion of the Tribunal, increase the revenue of the Commission from the charges to which the scheme relates by more than 10 per cent.
7.0 p.m.
The Tribunal could approve an increased revenue either in freight or in passengers or in both of 10 per cent.


There is, of course, machinery for the lengthy public inquiry which would at the earliest date be set in motion. In earlier discussions on this Clause I was impressed by two arguments. One was about the special problem of London. This is a monopoly problem. The Transport Commission, through the London Transport Executive, have a monopoly of the passenger services. Outside, the Commission have to regulate their passenger charges by what the traffic can bear, and there are many other forms of competition. In London there is no competition. It has been represented that what I call the headroom Clause might operate unfairly in London.
Secondly, on the question of merchandise, though the Commission are limited to a 10 per cent. increase in revenue from freight charges under this headroom Clause, it is theoretically possible that they might put all the 10 per cent. revenue increase on one commodity, such as coal. It is highly unlikely that such a proposal would get the approval of the Transport Tribunal at the preliminary hearing, but it has been represented that, as it is theoretically possible, steps should be taken to prevent it.
That is the reason for the first of this series of Amendments, the general result of which I will outline. I believe that we have found a means which ought to give confidence and protection to the London passenger travelling public as to the consequences of this scheme. The revenue from all passenger increases would have to be limited to 10 per cent. It is theoretically possible that the Commission, who could only invoke this procedure to meet increases in costs, might put all their increases of costs for the whole British railway system—wages, fuel tax and whatever it might be—on to London fares alone. We are most anxious that this should neither be done nor thought to be done.
One purpose of our Amendment is to protect the London public against that possibility. We considered whether we could separate the different forms of travel in London—ordinary tickets, early morning tickets and workmen's tickets—and limit the increase to 10 per cent. in any one of these categories. But, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will know, the difficulty of

having a 10 per cent. increase on a small 'bus fare would be such as to make that impossible. It might lead to the result that there could be no increase in the higher fares when a case had been made out.
Therefore, under our proposal, increases in revenue from the London Transport Executive services must not exceed so much of the relevant increase in the Commission's costs on wages, fuel tax or whatever it may be, as is properly apportionable to the provision of these services. This means that any increase in London up to the maximum of 10 per cent. can only result if the increase in costs, whatever they may be, in the London area alone justify that increase up to the maximum of 10 per cent.
The need for some provision of this kind has been strongly represented to me by a delegation of Conservative Members of Parliament who sit for London constituencies. I know that it is a view also held by a number of Members of the party opposite, not least by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham. I hope that this will meet the fear that this Clause, which is generally recognised to be desirable and which the Commission have welcomed, should not be used or thought to be used or thought to be likely to be used to prejudice unduly the interests of the London travelling public.
I was also impressed by the argument that theoretically the whole of the 10 per cent. increase in revenue on freight might be put on a single commodity. It is inconceivable that the Tribunal would give approval to that, but so long as the theoretical condition exists—

Mr. Ernest Davies: Or that the Commission would propose it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Or that the Commission would propose it, but so long as there is a theoretical possibility, it ought to be met.
There is also the possibility that a very large increase might be put on a certain form of merchandise and although later, after the inquiry, it might be considerably scaled down, the measure of the scaling down might be less than otherwise it would have been because of the height at which it was originally raised. In the case of merchandise it is possible to


have a 10 per cent. increase in the charge for any one commodity. We could have a fraction of a penny per cwt., or whatever the relevant increase might be. We cannot do that fractionalizing, or whatever the proper word would be, in the case of passengers, so we have put down another Amendment, in line 28, which provides that in the case of an increase of revenue from freight, that increase should not be more than 10 per cent. in any maximum charge.
As for the application to the Tribunal, in the latter case, it does not appear necessary that there should now be this compulsory application to the Tribunal before the headroom Clause is invoked, but for increases in passenger fares, where there is a need to see that an improper proportion of the costs is not being attributed to London, we propose to retain the obligation to refer under this Clause to the Transport Tribunal.
I notice that my noble Friend the Member for Dorset. South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has proposed an Amendment, in line 39, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in the case of merchandise traffic no such amendment shall result in an increase exceeding ten per centum in any maximum charge then in force.
I should like to thank him for the assiduity with which he has pursued the arguments that are expressed in that Amendment, and to say that the Government have taken seriously to heart the representations that he and his colleagues have made. Because of this, I am happy to commend his proposal to the House.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I was surprised by the Minister's statement that he had been impressed by the arguments which had been produced on Clause 22, as a result of which he was making these Amendments, because—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not in the House.

Mr. Davies: —as it happens, during our Committee stage we had no discussion whatever on Clause 22. It was prevented by the Guillotine.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But there was plenty on other stages of the Bill.

Mr. Davies: There has only been one other stage of the Bill and that was the Second Reading. I do not recall that this was one of the matters which received

an outstanding amount of attention. However, we on this side of the House accepted on Second Reading the principle of what the Minister calls a headroom Clause.
As far as I understand the position, the Minister put two proposals before us. The first was that there shall be separate procedures for raising passenger fares and increasing goods charges. Secondly, there shall be protection for the passengers who make use of London Transport. Where the Commission desire to raise passenger fares they will have to apply to the Tribunal for a temporary scheme, and subsequently the Tribunal will hear the final scheme put forward by the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission, without going to the Tribunal, will be able to raise goods charges, subject to the qualifications which the Minister explained. Both increases must be applied so that they do not go above a certain maximum. I think that that is the position.
Does this mean that the Commission can obtain additional revenue either by putting up goods charges or by putting up passenger charges, or by both?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: If that is so, it occurs to us that perhaps there is lacking some protection against the Commission using one method to prejudice the other. There seems to be no provision whereby the Commission can be prevented from putting the burden on the travelling public and not on freight, or putting it on freight and not on passengers. In other words, there are no means whereby the Commission can be compelled to consider spreading the increased burden equally or proportionately over freight charges and passenger fares, and that does seem to be one of the weaknesses of this proposal.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are only dealing here with a very temporary period, and when it comes to the point where the new application is put in, the long-term consideration is given by the Tribunal. Then. the justice of the case put forward by the Commission would come under searching review. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is better to separate passenger fares and freight charges and give this flexibility to the Commission, who, after all, are


bound in the case of freight, while in the monopoly field special protection is given under this Bill, and that is a fairly good protection.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that so often a temporary period becomes permanent, and we are still, under the 1947 Act, working on the transitional provisions with reference to the raising of freight charges. When the Tribunal, acting as a consultative committee, was recently considering freight charges, it had to decide on the Commission's proposals without taking into account the possibility of increasing passenger fares.
I would remind the Minister that last year, when the Commission applied to the Transport Tribunal for increased passenger fares and the Tribunal ruled on the scheme and assented to it, the Government then intervened and did not accept the recommendations of the Transport Tribunal, nor did they accept the view of the Central Consultative Committee, to which they were referred and which endorsed them. Whatever proposals the Minister puts forward, there is no guarantee that, for political purposes, the Government will not intervene again.
Although we accept the principle of the proposals which the Minister puts forward, we cannot feel that there is full protection for the public against a Government which yields to the temptation to intervene with a nationalised body, such as the Transport Commission, for political reasons, as they have done in the past. These Amendments provide no protection whatever against that. We deplore interference for political reasons when there is full machinery, as there is in this case, for a judicial body like the Transport Tribunal to give its ruling.
I want now to say a word or two about London Transport. The Minister has introduced this Amendment regarding London Transport to limit the extent to which charges in London can be raised to a fair proportion in regard to that increase that is to say, that the charges cannot be raised more than costs have gone up in the London area in proportion to the rise in costs over the whole of the Commission's undertaking. That would be all right if it were not for the fact that London Transport is already in an unfair and prejudiced position.
We who represent constituencies within the London Transport area have contended frequently, both in this House and outside, that London at the present time is being asked to contribute more than its fair share to the financial pool of the Transport Commission, and, if the position today is unfair to London, as we consider it is, then under this Amendment that position may well continue. Although this Amendment will mean that in future the increase in costs will only be made proportionately in London and in a fair proportion, the unfair position can still remain. I wish this Amendment could be framed in such a way as to apply after the position has been put right.
7.15 p.m.
I do not think there can be any dispute as to the unfair position in which the London travelling public find themselves. I do not want to go into the actual figures again because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak and the Guillotine falls in 15 minutes. Briefly, the position is that the Transport Commission, roughly, receives half its revenue from London and outside London in regard to passenger transport, but, on the last two occasions, the increase has been very much greater for London than for the rest of the country, and that is a position which must be put right.

Mr. Braithwaite: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I am sure it would be helpful to the House? Do we understand from his remarks that he is supporting the action taken by some of my hon. Friends in putting down an Amendment to the British Transport Commission's Private Bill seeking an inquiry?

Mr. Davies: Certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman had read the terms of the Motion in regard to the Transport Commission's Private Bill, I am sure he himself would not support that. I hope the Minister will discourage and reject any suggested rejection of that Bill on the grounds proposed by his hon. Friends. Quite unjust accusations are levelled against the Transport Commission, but if I were to venture into a discussion of that Private Bill at this stage. I am sure it would be quite out of order.
What we have supported as far as London Transport is concerned is that


there should be an inquiry into the financial position of the Transport Commission. We proposed that ourselves during previous debates in this House, because we consider that it should be seen to what extent the financial position of the Commission is such that there is an unfair burden placed on the travelling public of London as against the rest of the country. So far as London is concerned, the increase has always been proportionately far greater than in the country.
This Clause is necessary because of the great delay which has taken place between the application by the Commission to the Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal and their implementation. The Transport Commission has been severely handicapped as a result, and this Clause does give them that flexibility to take temporary steps which should assist the Commission, but I would add that the position was made even worse by the action which the Government took on the last occasion, and of which I hope we shall not see a repetition when the Transport Tribunal has given its decision on the scheme which is now before it.
The Clause is also necessary because we fear very much that, as a result of this Bill and of the Government's action in forcing this Bill through the House, the Transport Commission will inevitably be placed in a situation which will require in to come forward with a demand for further increases in fares and charges. Not only will the amputation of certain of its services such as road haulage and the like place it in a more difficult position, but the prejudiced way in which the Bill has been framed, and the manner in which it is bound to be applied, will result in a deterioration in the financial position of the Transport Commission.
My final point is in regard to charges. The Minister referred to the fact that there was no charges scheme in the case of freight, and I would remind him that it is entirely due to the Government's action that there is no charges scheme in regard to freight. If there was a charges scheme for freight in operation today, along the lines which the Commission had claimed and which it had presented to industry, then the position of the Commission would be somewhat better than it is, and the relationship between the different forms of transport as regards charges would be very much improved.

The Government, through their change of policy, held up the charges scheme, and it has not been proceeded with. While we are not fully satisfied with the way in which this Clause will be drafted as a result of this Amendment, we consider that it is necessary to give the Commission flexibility and because in a Bill of this type such a Clause cannot be omitted. Therefore, we do not propose to divide against it.

Mr. Henry Brooke: As one of the London Conservative Members to whom my right hon. Friend was good enough to refer in his speech, I should like to thank him warmly for the valuable and ingenious method he has discovered for protecting the interests of Londoners. When I first saw Clause 22 in the Bill, I, as a London Member, became anxious. I was not criticising the idea of that headroom Clause, but I saw the possibility of a situation arising such as we have now, where the Commission is making an overall loss, with passenger traffic outside London decidedly unprofitable, with London passenger traffic slightly unprofitable, and with merchandise traffic throughout the country decidedly profitable.
To meet a loss like this arising from higher costs, the Commission might first look at the possibility of asking for an immediate increase in passenger fares outside London. But that would be dangerous because the economic rule of transport. that one cannot charge more than the traffic will bear, would come into play. Therefore, the Commission would be tempted to concentrate on raising fares in London, where alone it enjoys a monopoly position, and where the traffic can be got to bear practically anything that the Commission may put upon it in the way of higher fares, because people in London cannot avoid travelling to and from their work. That is where the Minister has helped us by his Amendments.
We in London do not accept the arguments often trotted out that London fares have risen less than fares elsewhere, or that fares per mile are lower in London than in the rest of the country. because those arguments when analysed are found to be based on a false comparison between road-cum-rail fares in London, on the one hand, and rail fares alone in the rest of the country. These things can


only be judged rightly if the comparison is a direct one, based on road and rail together in each case.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and I are in agreement that in these charges schemes up till now London has been unfairly treated in general by the Commission. This is not the moment to deal with that vital point at length. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend's Amendment safeguards Londoners from what was a really serious danger, the danger that the Commission might find means at private meetings of the Tribunal to get unjustified new charges imposed on the London travelling public, and that the London public and their representatives would not have any opportunity of arguing the case on their own behalf until the charges were already in force. Though there would be a public hearing after that, the Tribunal would by that time be in the invidious position of having to decide, through a public hearing, whether its conclusions reached in private had been wrong.
Against these dangers the Minister's Amendment goes far to protect us. This strikes me as the first recognition in any Transport Bill of the specially vulnerable position in which the London travelling public finds itself, and I am thankful that the Amendment secures that any increased charges imposed on London will either have to be directly related to London costs or justified at a public inquiry.

Mr. J. Hynd: Like other hon. Members on both sides, particularly those who are either resident in the London area or who know the special problems of London, I am sure that there will be a general welcome for the concessions made in this Amendment and a recognition of the desirability and, indeed, the necessity for ensuring not only that that flexibility is operated equitably as between goods and passenger transport, but also equitably as between the different parts of the country and the different people concerned. I do not think, for instance, that any charge would be made in my constituency of Sheffield to the effect that London was being given any special favour in the matter, because I am sure it is generally recognised

throughout the country that the Londoner is in a special position vis-à-vis the conditions he has to face in regard to traffic.
It has been pointed out that people resident in London or working in the London area generally have to travel very long distances and, therefore, have to meet heavy weekly travel costs, in addition to losing the time involved in travelling, which is a very important factor. So far as railwaymen are concerned, I can assure the Minister that they will understand the position very well indeed because throughout the whole history of railway agreements covering conditions of employment it has always been laid down that there shall be a differential rate paid to people living in the London area. Indeed, there are three differential rates applying respectively to the London area, the urban areas and the rural areas.
The Londoner was always assumed to have to meet very much higher costs of living because of the fact that he lived in London or within the London area, and that therefore he must have a supplement to his earnings. That was done not because the cost of food, clothing or other items of that kind were necessarily higher in London than elsewhere, but because the Londoner has this very heavy transport charge to meet. That applies even to railwaymen with their specialised privilege in regard to travel.
On the last occasion when it was proposed to increase fares throughout the country and when for special political reasons the Government found it convenient to suspend that increase coming into force until after the municipal elections had been held, it was clearly emphasised that Londoners are in a very special position largely as a result of the fares they have to pay. I am speaking not only as one who knows the minds of the railwaymen in regard to this matter, but also as one who, though living in the London area, can claim, like many other hon. Members, to know the minds of the people living in the provincial towns and in the rural areas.
I am sure that there will be a great deal of understanding about this and a recognition that in a scheme of this kind, however deplorable the tragedies we may have to face as a result of this unhappy Measure, there must be a degree of flexibility throughout the country and as


between the different sections of the community. Therefore, I do not think the Minister need anticipate any opposition from this side of the House to this particular Amendment.

Captain Ryder: I want to express my thanks to the Minister for being good enough to receive a deputation and for removing some of the misgivings which we had with regard to Clause 22, and also for moving this Amendment which, I feel, will protect Londoners against the possibilities which we foresaw. The only thing that I should like to add is, as I endeavoured to do earlier this evening in pointing out the disadvantages from which London suffered, to ask whether something similar could not be also applied to Clause 18, which is the more permanent Measure for increasing the charges?
It being Half-past Seven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Half-past Seven o'Clock.
Amendments made: In page 30, line 27, after "schemes," insert:
(being schemes devoted exclusively or principally to determining the charges to be made for the carriage of passengers).
In line 28, at end, insert:
(ii) they may, by notice published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes and in such other manner as may appear to them best adapted for informing persons affected, declare that all or any of the maximum charges fixed by any of the charges schemes (not being such charges schemes as aforesaid) are to be treated, as from a date specified in the notice, as increased by such percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent.;
and where such a notice is published, the schemes shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.
In line 37, after "opinion," insert:
either—
(a)
In line 39, at end, insert:
or
(b) will together increase the revenue of the Commission from the passenger trans-

port services provided at the passing of this Act by the London Transport Executive by more than so much of the relevant increase in the costs of the Commission as is properly apportionable to the provision of those services.
In page 31, line 4, leave out "and," and insert:
(5) Where the Transport Tribunal make an order under subsection (2) of this section or the Commission publish a notice under subsection (1) of this section, the Commission shall.
In line 24, after "section," insert:
or deemed to be amended by the relevant notice under subsection (1) of this section.
In line 27, after "subsection (2)," insert:
or deemed to be made by the relevant notice under the said subsection (1).
—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause 24.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO GENERAL DUTY AND CONSTITUTION OF COMMISSION, ETC.)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 32, line 33, to leave out "ten," and to insert "fourteen."
In Clause 24, we return to the miscellaneous questions affecting the future operations of the Commission. The Amendment, by substituting "fourteen" for "ten," is designed to bring the membership of the Commission up to 14.
The Railway Executive is to go. The Docks and Inland Waterways and the London Passenger Executives will remain. The Commission is charged with the duty of preparing the scheme of reorganisation of the railways. The Commission will also have to supervise the management of the road passenger companies, which it now has to supervise, and of the new road haulage companies which are to be formed. It therefore will have a very large area of functions to look after, even if it is not responsible for executive decisions in the sense that it has been responsible hitherto. The assets, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) pointed out during the Committee stage, are of the order of £1,300 million, even if we strip the Commission of their interests in road haulage.
It is clear that the Commission will remain for, perhaps, all time a very important body indeed. I think it was felt in the Committee stage that the arguments that were adduced by my hon.


Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and by other hon. Members that there was some case for increasing the membership of the Commission, were powerful arguments. In deciding what the number is to be, the guess of any hon. Member is as good as another's as to what functions precisely the Commission will discharge. I have always hoped that the Commission would consist of a chairman and vice-chairman and, perhaps, one other who would be full-time, and that all the others would be part-time; but whether these part-time members are to be the chairmen of the areas or regions, or outside persons altogether, has yet to be determined.
It is the practice, I think, in large-scale commercial companies that the directors should be numerous and should be drawn from widely differing spheres of interest, and I hope that this practice will be reproduced in the Commission. There was very little wrong with the higher management of the great railway groupings under the 1921 Act until a kind of political hatred was built up against them by members of the party opposite. I hope to see re-established a Commission largely resembling in character and in number the boards of either the London, Midland and Scottish, the London and North-Eastern or the Southern Railway.
It might interest the House to know the composition of the other public boards. I have divided the figures into the two categories of full-time members and part-time members. The British Overseas Airways Corporation has three full-time and seven part-time members, the three fulltime members including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. For British European Airways Corporation, the figures are two and five; Cable and Wireless, two and three; National Coal Board, seven and four; Colonial Development Corporation, two and eight; Raw Cotton Commission, three and nine; British Electricity Authority, three and eight, and the Gas Council, two and 12. I have omitted the Transport Commission from this calculation because I have tried to make an analysis on average for each of these corporations as they will continue to appear from now on.
The average of these corporations and public boards works out at a full-time membership of three and a part-time

membership of seven. I do not know that that proves anything in particular, as to whether it would be wise to set up a British Transport Commission on that average number. Indeed, the Amendment I am moving at the moment disproves it, because we are seeking to have 14. But it is interesting to reflect that the average of the existing corporations produced that result. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was anxious during the Committee stage to maintain the position which he always holds in this matter, that the full-time members of the Commission were of value. He said, speaking of the party opposite:
We should prefer a co-ordinated full-time element of a chairman and four other members with others who are part-time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1952; Vol. 509. c. 1722.]
On another occasion he instanced some of the functions which the Commission should discharge, namely, labour questions; the general control of capital expenditure; railway charges; and again the centralised control of the manufacture of locomotives, of mechanical vehicles, signals, automatic braking, and things of that kind. He seemed to think that the chairman and the four other permanent members should, in some way, be associated with these permanent centralised functions of the Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon who always goes part-way with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, at any rate on these technical questions, rather agreed with that view. He thought the Commission should have charge of the labour policy, the standardisation of locomotive manufacture—though not, I think, of design and general control. The hon. Member for Abingdon was concerned to see that the Commission should increase in number up to 20.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) in his place, because he originally moved the Amendment which I am now moving, and I am glad to see that his name is on the Order Paper supporting this Amendment. We do not agree that my right hon. Friend should now define what are to be the centralised functions of the Commission; nor that he should associate individual members of the Commission with those functions and thereby arrive at what number of permanent and of part-time mem-


bers there should be. We gladly accept the provision in the Bill that there should be a permanent chairman and such other permanent members as the Minister will decide in due course. Obviously, he will decide according to the scheme prepared by the Commission. We merely wish to give him greater latitude in deciding between the permanent and nonpermanent members by increasing the number from 10 to 14.

Mr. Renton: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hope of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and myself, and those on this side of the House who support the Amendment, is that the Commission shall be broadly based and representative enough to represent the public interest, and, at the same time, small enough to be workable. As my noble Friend has said, the precise number which should be included is anybody's guess. I would offer the following considerations in determining what should be the size.
Apart from the chairman, anything up to perhaps half a dozen whole-time members will be required. It may be that four whole-time members, apart from the chairman would be enough. One should be a trade unionist, and concerned with labour relations. The other whole-time members should concentrate, as they do now, upon various aspects of the organisation of the Commission. But in order to ensure that the Commission is representative, I think we should aim at a situation in which each region in the country is represented in some way among the members of the Commission.
There should certainly be, for example, a Scottish and a Welsh member; someone from East Anglia; someone from the industrial Midlands; from the South-West and from the North. Superimposed upon that conception we should aim at providing that the various interests—besides the general public interest which the Commission will have to serve—are also representative. I hope to see a knowledgeable agriculturist of wide experience as a member. There might well be one part-time member of the National Coal Board; someone representing the iron and steel industry; another representing bricks and cement, and someone else representing fishing.
One could multiply the interests which might usefully be represented on the Board and at the conclusion find that the ideal Board would be too numerous. I therefore suggest that the modest proposal of my noble Friend to increase the total to 14 meets the situation.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Holt: I wish to support the Amendment which is similar to the one I originally moved in Committee. I hope later to make some further remarks on the type of people who ought to be on the Commission.
The purpose of this Bill is to allow the railways to act in future as a commercial organisation and so serve the public interest better than in the past. If the railways are to be run as a commercial organisation, the type of considerations which would influence a commercial company in forming its board should influence the Minister in this matter. I suggest that that will take the form of having one or two—probably not more—people who will be the leading lights and the driving force of the Transport Commission.
But if they are adequately to fulfil their task, it is essential that they should be supported by what amounts to a board of directors with the very widest knowledge and experience over the whole field of transport, the basic industries and the ancillary industries and services of this country. That cannot be obtained with the limited number of 10 which is allowed for in this Bill. The number should be at least 14, if not even more.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not know whether or not the fact that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) seconded this Amendment and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) has supported him foreshadows a reunion in the Liberal Party The views which they have expressed on this occasion were very close. That has not been very unusual in our debate because we have found the Liberals very much to the right of the Tories with the National-Liberals standing in between.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will not accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government. Although we admit that one needs a reasonable amount of flexibility in the size of these nationalised boards we do not feel that there is any


necessity for increasing the number beyond the 10 proposed by the Minister, because for our part we thought that eight other members in addition to the Chairman, which was the number originally of the Transport Commission, were and remain sufficient.
I say that because our attitude towards the position of the boards of nationalised undertakings has always been that they should be composed of a representative team of qualified individuals capable of carrying on the general policy-making functions of the body. We have never envisaged that the boards themselves should be, as it were, executive, functional organisations, particularly in the case of transport where there were executives created for the purpose of carrying out the administration. We prefer to retain the Commission, even after the changes which this Bill brings about are in operation, largely as a policy-making and planning body.
I believe that one of the reasons this Amendment has been brought forward is that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) have in their minds the thought that perhaps the best organisation for the reconstructed railways of this country would be the old type of railway board with their chairman serving on the Transport Commission. I cannot quite understand why hon. Members opposite are so keen on reverting to the railway boards of directors.

Mr. G. Wilson: Because they worked.

Mr. Davies: It is suggested that they worked. But it is extremely hard for us to understand how railway directors, who in many cases held a dozen or more part-time directorships in banking, insurance and industrial undertakings, at the same time serving on railway boards, worked as functional executive operating the railway companies. If they did, they made a poor job of it, because before the war the railways were practically bankrupt.

Mr. Wilson: Nonsense.

Mr. Davies: Look at the London and North-Eastern.

Mr. Wilson: Look at the Great Western Railway.

Mr. Davies: Look at the failure of the railways to electrify and to keep up with the technical developments which were required. We on this side of the House do not envisage a satisfactory operation of the Transport Commission if there are to be a large number of railway boards operating the railway regions and those railway chairmen serving on the Transport Commission.
I cannot quite understand the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South putting forward this proposal, because it is he and other hon. Members opposite who are always accusing the nationalised undertakings of having too many at the top, of being top-heavy in administration and directorship. Here, the noble Lord himself proposes that we should inflate this board of a nationalised undertaking and increase the number of members to 14 from 10 proposed in the Bill and eight laid down in our Act.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is the costly nature of a top-heavy bureaucratic organisation which we really resent. Part of our proposal here is to have part-time directors who will receive very small salaries indeed.

Mr. Davies: It is difficult to understand how one is cheapening the cost of operating an undertaking by increasing the membership of a board by four. I cannot follow the reasoning of the noble Lord.
As I stated, I hope that the Minister does not propose to accept this Amendment and that he will leave the Bill as it stands in this matter of membership. We hope that he does not envisage changing the type of this board from that of a policy-making and planning body to a part-time board of the type envisaged by the noble Lord.

Mr, G. Wilson: It is really time that hon. Members opposite stopped making ridiculous attacks on the old railway boards. The suggestion that those boards were inefficient and that the railways were inefficient before the war is complete nonsense and has no basis whatsoever. The suggestion that the railway companies were bankrupt is equally untrue. Hon. Members opposite seem to have omitted to notice that we have already adopted a Clause which proposes to abolish the Railways Executive. What


exact system we shall have substituted for them we do not know. That remains for a scheme to be put forward by those who are responsible and we shall then study the matter. It may very well be that a greater function will fall to the Transport Commission.
Incidentally, the suggestion has been made in the House that the total fees of the railway directors before the war were in excess of the cost of the Railways Executive. That is completely untrue. In 1947, the total cost of all fees to railway directors in this country was £96,000 and the Railways Executive in 1951 cost something like £500,000.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member is not only being completely unfair, but is putting the most ridiculous interpretation on the situation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I think that neither side can enter into this matter any further.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order. Surely when such a false statement is made it should be answered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Both sides are completely out of order in their observations at the moment.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, one of the matters which we have to consider on the question of whether there should be 10 or 14 members of this board is the additional cost, if any, to the national Exchequer. Surely, we may properly consider in that light what they ought to be paid and for that purpose we can look at salaries paid to people who were doing comparable work before the war.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not necessary on this Amendment that we should enter into a comparison between the prewar and the post-war situations.

Mr. G. Wilson: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was pointing out that hon. Members opposite have forgotten that we have already passed a Clause which will abolish the Railway Executive and the outcome of which will be a considerable saving.
It might be that greater functions would fall on the Transport Commission. From previous experience in the manage-

ment of railways, I think it would be a very good thing to have part-time directors. One hon. Member opposite criticised those directors who had interests in a large number of concerns. One of the most notable of those was the late Lord Horne—

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in referring to that matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not in order. The question is whether the number should be increased from 10 to 14.

Mr. Wilson: The suggestion was made that the 14 members should include a number of part-time directors, and in answer to that there was the criticism by hon. Members opposite that part-time directors might be useless because they were interested in too many concerns.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) was proposing to have part-time directors because they could be got on the cheap—at about £200 a year.

Mr. Wilson: I shall not pursue that point, but it seems to me that the present number of 10 is too small and that we might very well increase it to 14. That would give a greater opportunity for the representation on that body of persons who have interests in many different directions or in many different trades. That is why I support the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: I think we should be grateful to my noble Friend for giving us another opportunity of considering the question of the size of the reconstituted Commission. We need not discuss whether any particular hon. Member is deviating either to the Right or the Left, according to the view he takes.
At present, the Clause states that 10 shall be the number. In Committee two Amendments were taken together—one by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), which was moved by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and which favoured 14, and the other by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) who wanted 20. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) indicated that he and his friends favoured 14. It was, therefore,


a little difficult to follow the mental processes of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), a few minutes ago, when he indicated that he hoped I should resist this Amendment and said that he and his friends were opposed to it. It may be that they have had further opportunities of considering this matter since the Committee stage.
I would remind the House what my right hon. Friend said on 18th December about the Government's attitude on this point:
Nor do we feel that there has yet been a case made out—and there will be other occasions when we can discuss this, both in another place and on the Report stage—for increasing the number of the Commission, but, as I have said, this is the sort of issue on which the wisdom of the Committee can well change Government policy, although it is my present intention to ask the Committee to reject both Amendments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1726.]
We have now had a further opportunity of discussing this question and I would submit to my noble Friend and the House in general that the most suitable number to form this Commission cannot be finally determined until the railway reorganisation scheme has been submitted to my right hon. Friend and approved by him. I think that the same applies to the geographical basis referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). We shall be in a far better position to judge what should be the numerical strength of the Commission when we know what is to be the reorganisation scheme. That will be the time to make a definite decision.
None the less, we do feel that there is much to be said for securing sufficient elbow room to allow for the appointment of a fairly substantial number of part-time members. It may be that 12 will prove to be a suitable number. [Laughter.] I see no reason for scorn. There is very little that separates us from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, who indicated that 14 might be a suitable number. I see no reason for mocking laughter when I suggest 12. I would suggest to my noble Friend and to the House that this point could quite properly be left for some further discussion in another place. It would be interesting to hear the views of their Lordships in this matter when the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. Mitchison: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind one very important matter, A membership of 12, plus a chairman, will make a most unlucky number. It would be too bad if they all attended and the person who attended last died in the ensuing year, as superstition goes.

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. and learned Gentleman holds out a macabre prospect. He has emphasised the necessity for some further thought on this matter—and that thought might come from another place, where so much knowledge exists on these various topics. I am sorry to note the superstitious character of the hon. and learned Member.
In the circumstances, knowing that this matter is very much in our minds, while we are not prepared to commit ourselves to a definite figure at this stage, it may be that my noble Friend will feel able to refrain from pressing this Amendment tonight.

Mr. H. Hynd: This is most unsatisfactory and I think we should hear a little more about it. We have now reached the stage where it is a question of, "Think of a number and then try to double it." What is the Government's proposal? The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was an indication from this side of the House—during the Committee stage—that 14 would be a possible number; but I would point out that there have been developments since then, and only yesterday and today has it begun to be fairly apparent that what is in the Government's mind on the question of the reorganisation of the railways is the creation of a series of boards in the various regions.
A few minutes ago we had a hint that the chairmen of those regional boards might serve on the Transport Commission. If that is the idea it will multiply the number of railway directors on the Commission. The position will not be as bad as it was in the old days, with 127 separate companies; but the number of directors will be multiplied. We used to hear a lot in this House about "jobs for the boys." This is beginning to look like a desire for "jobs for the boys," and when the Minister suggests that we might listen to what the other place has to say I suggest that we can guess what they might say. If it is a question of putting part-


time people on this Commission the other place might have an interest to declare.
It is most unsatisfactory that this question should be left as it is. The Government should either stick to the number that has been agreed—10—or indicate clearly what are their future intentions.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I agree with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that, by implication, there is no desperate hurry about this matter. The Commission will not be in their full stride for some months to come and we can well afford the time to enable further deliberations to take place and for another place to pronounce upon this matter. I have no doubt that in the end the Government—which, in many cases, is capable of acting decisively and speedily in making decisions on matters of public policy—will decide that something on the lines of this Amendment is required.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the noble Lord desire to withdraw his Amendment?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 33, line 1, to leave out:
(ii) a person who has had experience.
I can move the Amendment quite shortly because, in view of the fact that the Minister has put his name to it, I assume that the Government will accept it. The House will observe from the provisions of this subsection that, under the Bill as it stands, it is intended that the Commission, whatever the number may be, shall include
persons who between them have had experience in the management of railways and road transport;
The second paragraph says,
a person who has had experience in the organisation of workers.
The third paragraph says,
persons who, otherwise than by virtue of such experience as is mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii)…may between them be expected to be conversant with the requirements, as respects transport, of agriculture, commerce and industry.
In Committee, we took exception to the provision whereby, as far as we could see, the Minister was limited to the appointment of one person only who had had experience in the organisation of

workers, although theoretically it might be possible that people who had these other experiences might also have had experience in the organisation of workers on the trade union side. On the face of it, it appeared to be a limitation to the singular, to which we took strong exception. I understand that similar exception was taken on behalf of the trade unions concerned and of the Trades Union Congress as a whole and that conversations have taken place with the Minister as a result of which we have drafted this Amendment, which is somewhat different from the Amendment which we put down during the Committee stage. The Minister has been good enough to add his name to this Amendment and to the subsequent Amendment.
If these two Amendments are accepted, we shall omit the words at the top of page 33, "a person who has had experience." In that case, paragraph (c) would run as a whole, picking up these various qualifications and types of experience. The Minister would then have a free hand for appointments within these classes of experience and would not be prevented from appointing more than one person who had been associated with the organisation of workers.
Obviously the Amendment will be accepted, and I should like to express thanks to the Minister, not only on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party but on behalf of the Trades Union Congress, for having moved as far as he has moved. I also express the hope that when he makes the appointment he will not think in terms of the singular and of one person experienced in the organisation of workers but will think in rather more than the singular in drawing upon people with this valuable experience.
They are not bound to be transport workers, but they may be. It depends partly on whether they are to be full-time or part-time appointments. There is no doubt that the trade union world has an interesting, unique and valuable experience of industry, and it is of the greatest importance that we should draw adequately into the public service people with that class of experience.
I admit that the Amendment does not bind the Minister as to how many persons experienced in the organisation of workers he will appoint, but it leaves him free to appoint more than one, whereas


it appeared to us that the Bill previously did not leave him free to do so. It is our hope that he will appoint more than one person in this class of experience to the Commission. Once more I thank the Minister for supporting this Amendment, which I hope will commend itself to the House.

8.15 p.m.

Mi. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he moved what I think I am entitled to call our Amendment. As the Opposition know, under the wording of the Labour Party's Transport Act of 1947—Part I, Clause 1 (2)—although persons who have had experience and have shown capacity in the organisation of workers were included, there was nothing in the wording which made it mandatory upon a Minister to appoint a trade unionist. Of course, it was then and is now inconceivable that no trade unionist would be appointed to the Transport Commission.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, both the Opposition and the T.U.C. would prefer the Minister to bind himself in this Clause to appoint two trade unionists. As we have not finally decided the number that there should be on the Commission, it would appear to be unwise to bind ourselves to have two trade unionists. We are fully prepared—and I can imagine no alternative cause—to bind ourselves to the fact that there shall be a trade unionist on the Commission, and I note with interest and understanding what the right hon. Gentleman said about going beyond that. As he said, there is nothing in the wording to prevent a second appointment.
I was glad to put my name to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I only wish I were not too optimistic in thinking that in return he might put his name on the back of the Bill.

Mr. Sparks: I will detain the House for only one or two moments, but I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the wording "in the organisation of workers." I thought he might have been able to bring forward a better form of words, because when he talks about persons who have had experience in the organisation of workers he could include

almost anybody in a supervisory grade in the railway or road transport organisation. The term could include people who, day by day, were supervising the organisation of workers to perform a certain task.
If the Minister intended to seek a way out of the purpose of the Amendment and said that it did not insist that there should be more than one trade unionist, he could say that he was free to appoint one trade unionist and then appoint somebody else who had had no experience in trade union organisation; and that, in my view, would not meet the purpose of the Amendment. It would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman made these words more specific. He could have referred to persons who had had experience of organising the workers of the industry into a trade union, because undoubtedly that is a very valuable experience which should be expressed upon the Commission. To appoint merely one out of eight or ten is inadequate in the view of those who have had to do with the daily working of the industry.
I should like the point to be cleared up, because there may be some confusion between what we on this side of the House mean by these words and what hon. Members opposite mean. Can we be assured that we both mean the same thing in our interpretation of the words "in the organisation of workers"?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said, there is nothing to prevent the appointment of a second trade unionist. As to whom it should be—whether it should be from a union mainly concerned with supervisory work or whatever union it should be—I or my successor would go to the T.U.C. and ask whom they would like to sit on the Commission. In a matter of that kind I think it would be better for the decision to be in the hands of the T.U.C.
The words "the organisation of workers" were lifted in their entirety from that fountain of wisdom, the Socialist Act of 1947. If the hon. Gentleman prefers some other words and would not mind taking them from such a source, perhaps he can suggest to a Labour Peer in another place that he should find a form of words which would express the same purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: In page 33, line 4, leave out from "as," to "may," in line 5, and insert "aforesaid."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Should I be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at this moment in referring to who the persons aforesaid are?

Mr. H. Morrison: As I moved the Amendment, may I explain? The words "as aforesaid" refer to the earlier words in the Clause as it is, that still survive; that is—and the Minister will correct me if he thinks I am not right—they take account of those classes together, instead of segregating them.

Major Legge-Bourke: That is precisely as I understood it. That is why I asked, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would be in order to raise matters appertaining to the persons referred to aforesaid.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it would be in order to raise the matter.

Major Legge-Bourke: What I have particularly in mind is the composition of the Commission, and I should very much like to develop the point, if I may be allowed to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that would be out of order. We have already passed it. It would be out of order to raise it at this stage, because we have already gone beyond that.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I refer, then, to paragraph (iii) which this Amendment is amending, and which refers to
persons who, otherwise than by virtue of such experience as is mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, may between them be expected to be conversant with the requirements, as respects transport, of agriculture, commerce and industry
and in particular refer to transport, which is the point I wish to raise? If that would be in order I should like to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a part we have not reached. The other part we have passed. I do not think that would be in order.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AS TO COMMISSION.)

Mr. Hargreaves: I beg to move, in page 34, line 12, to leave out "interests of national defence," and to insert, "public interest."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would suggest that this Amendment and the next two Amendments can be taken together, that proposing to leave out lines 16 to 21, and that to line 19, to leave out "interests of national defence," and to insert "public interest."

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) will allow me to say so, I think there is something to be said for a separate discussion on the proposed omission of lines 16 to 21. However, perhaps it would be convenient to take them together, provided we can have the Questions put separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Questions will be put separately, but the discussion of the three Amendments can be taken together.

Mr. Hargreaves: This Amendment, and the third of these three, are in precisely similar terms. They widen the scope of the Clause. It will be plain to the Minister and to the House what is the purpose behind the insertion of these words. Many of us have felt for a long time that the resources available to the British Transport Commission represent in themselves an immense amount of national capital in the transport industry, and there has grown up a feeling that when we take together the amount of labour and capital involved in the road services and on the rail, and in the other services controlled under the 1947 Act, there are immense national resources tied up in transport which, perhaps, are not being used effectively and fully, interlocking with the rest of our industrial system.
I feel that the skilled labour on the railways, which is available in the workshops and in the repair shops, the ability that has been built up over generations in that particular service—and this is general throughout the whole of the transport undertakings of the country—the very wide spheres of skill there, ought to be used much more generally in the public interest, especially in times of emergency—and we have recognised the need for employing those resources fully during war time. It seems to me that if we take into account the labour and capital involved in the transport industry as a whole, there is a case for giving the Minister the power which would come from the acceptance of these Amendments.


They appear minor in scope, but I believe that the use of these resources, which I have merely sketched because of the limitations of time—the skill, the resources of the plant within the transport industry—instead of being utilised to the full, is limited by the words "interests of national defence." I am sure that the interests of the nation would be best served if the Minister were given power—not direction, but power—in certain circumstances to widen the sphere of this Clause, so that the public interest could take precedence over the "interests of national defence."
I believe that that phrase is unnecessarily limiting in its application. I think the Minister might give consideration to the acceptance of the power that this Amendment would give him in the interests of the nation as a whole, so that the skill, experience, plant, labour and capital invested in the transport industry as a whole can be made available in the public interest, as the Amendment proposes.

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
Perhaps the strongest arguments for this Amendment are the events we have witnessed during the last few days. We had a great national emergency, and the Prime Minister himself said that all the resources of the nation would be made available to tackle it. In future, there may well be similar national emergencies, although we hope there will not be, when the Transport Commission, with its vast resources of workshops, materials, manpower and skill, could be used in the national interest, as would be possible if the Amendment were accepted. If the narrower wording of "national defence" were left in the Bill, they might be prevented from doing so. In the light of the events of the last few days, I hope the Minister will look kindly on this Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I venture to think that this Amendment is of considerable importance, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the rather narrow limits of the present subsection. As I understand. at present the Commission can
engage in any activity which the Minister may from time to time think fit in the interests of national defence to authorise or direct them to engage in.

Then we come to the limitations imposed by certain provisos, which are not to apply to any such activities. But then the Minister is not to authorise or direct unless he is satisfied as regards any form of activity falling within the scope of the limitations; that is, briefly speaking, that it cannot be done elsewhere.
The limitations in the Transport Act, 1947, are extremely wide, because they include the manufacture or production of anything which is not required for use for the purposes of the Commission's undertaking. They also include some other rather sweeping provisions, which perhaps it is unnecessary to refer to at the moment. The kind of thing I have in mind—and I take it only as an instance—is perhaps the most obvious of all, railway workshops. I cannot help feeling that there ought to be provision, at the Minister's discretion, for enabling the capacity of railway workshops to be used to the full. Speaking for myself, I would hardly expect the Minister to accept a provision of this sort unless he had the controlling power over it. But he is to have the controlling power, and on those terms I should like to know why be merely wishes to limit his authorisation or direction to the particular case of national defence.
I agree that the railway workshops could, no doubt, be usefully employed for the purposes of national defence if they were not fully occupied on strictly railway work, but I can also see that there are many other things on which they might usefully be employed. I think that the express limitation to national defence is itself very vague and uncertain. Suppose, for instance, to take a very simple sort of case, it were found that a large number of new bicycles were required for the Post Office. I can imagine that a thing of that sort might usefully be made in railway workshops, but why it should be impossible to make it for the Post Office and lawful to make the same bicycle for the Army passes my understanding. One can think of similar cases.
The object of the Clause must be, in the Minister's mind, to see that this manufacturing capacity in particular is fully occupied. He will perhaps wish, in any directions or authorisations he may make, to give priority to national defence, but why only to national defence? Suppose that for one reason or another the improvements that have been made


in the railways mean that there is surplus capacity in the workshops, and suppose that at the moment it is not too easy to find jobs on national defence which the workshops can do. Surely it is only prudent for the Minister to give himself the opportunity to employ men in the railway workshops on work which would be really useful, instead of turning the men away. So much for the general purposes of the Clause. I repeat that the whole of this is subject to the Minister's authorisation or direction.
I turn to the limitation, and again I fail to see why it is necessary. The Minister is restricted to giving the Commission authority or directions to engage in any form of activity, unless he is satisfied that the work required
cannot be carried out or cannot be carried out without serious risk of undue delay or of loss of efficiency.
I do not know what "undue risk of loss of efficiency" may mean. It seems to me one of those somewhat turgid phrases which occasionally get into even the best considered legislation and have remarkably little meaning. I suppose it is intended to mean that the work cannot be done efficiently anywhere else. Why this restriction? I cannot see why the Minister's hands should be tied in this way.
Suppose the position is that the railway workshops must have more work to do and that if they are not given the orders they will have to turn their men away. Suppose that the Minister says that the work which can be placed with them can be done equally well by somebody else, who is at the moment pretty well employed. Let us even suppose that both rival manufacturers are equally in the position that if they do not get the orders they will have to turn men away.
In those circumstances the Minister of Transport ought to give the first preference to his own folk. He is the Minister of Transport and, as he told us the other day, the spokesman in this House for the Commission. He ought not to preclude himself in those circumstances from allowing work to be done by the railway workshops, even though it could equally well be done by somebody else, and though the social damage caused by the one order or the other would be exactly equal.
Surely if we reach that nice balance of consideration we are entitled to consider

that the people concerned are public employees and that Ministers happen to be Tory Ministers. In the circumstances, they are surely entitled to give their own people and their employment some measure of priority, as a good employer would give in a similar case. I cannot understand the reasons for or the benefit of the proviso.
I make no apology for saying yet once more that I should have viewed the whole Clause differently and that I should expect the Minister to regard it differently, if it were not the case that in every instance there must be specific authority or directions. If there is to be that very powerful and wide limitation on it, I fail to see that it should be restricted to matters of national defence instead of the more general wording suggested by our Amendments. Equally, I fail to see any reasons for the proviso. I have taken the railway workshops as one instance, perhaps the most obvious one, but there must be a great many cases, probably much smaller ones, to which exactly the same considerations apply.

Major Sydney Markham: I hope that the Minister will, approve of this Amendment because one of the gravest industrial tragedies in this country of the last two or three years has been our inability to make the fullest possible use of our railway workshops. I do not want to cross swords with hon. Members opposite on this question, but I must remind them that it was a Section of the nationalisation Act of 1947 which prohibited railways from doing anything outside their own requirements and which put the stopper on the railways playing their proper part not only in national defence under the rearmament scheme, but also—

Mr. H. Hynd: This side of the House was not responsible for that Section of the Act.

Mr. D. Jones: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me—

Major Markham: I can only answer one at a time. It was that side of the House which had an overwhelming Parliamentary majority at the time and had complete charge of the Act.

Mr. Hynd: There was another place—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that we are not in Committee.

Major Markham: May I put it this way? Hon. Members on both sides of the House realised with apprehension, between 12 and 15 months ago, that hundreds of railway workers up and down the country were being sacked. In my own constituency, at Wolverton, I was informed a year ago that 400 men were to be sacked because the railways could not take on any defence work or any work for the export trade and because the steel shortage had rendered their new rolling stock impossible. As the House knows, the matter was raised on the Adjournment and owing to the endeavours of the Ministry of Transport and the Transport Commission those dismissals were suspended and, owing to a rearrangement of work, the railway workshops have carried on without discharging a single man.
I realise that I am sailing near the line between what is in order and what is not in order by mentioning a specfiic case, so now I will refer to the Amendment. It gives the Minister power to direct not only that certain aspects of national defence work shall be carried on in railway workshops, but also some contract work for the export trade. It is on that aspect that I shall spend two minutes of the time of the House.
One astonishing aspect of the past few years has been the large number of overseas orders which our private railway undertakings have not been able successfully to compete for in world markets. According to the "British Gazette," during the last few years we have lost orders to the tune of nearly £100 million from Pakistan, India, Argentina and so on. There have been two main reasons, the principal of which has been the delay in delivery dates quoted by firms in this country contrasted with those of their European and American competitors. Those delivery dates could have been put forward considerably if the private railway workshops of this country could have called upon the workshops of British Railways to assist them. By this alone we could have solved the problem of expanding our export trade and keeping the men in the railway workshops at work and of improving the national economy.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the proviso. My private opinion of it is that it is absolute, unadulterated, unvarnished nonsense. There is no possibility of this, but if ever I were to be in the place of the Minister—

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might be a P.P.S.

Major Markham: —and I were asked to decide whether work could be carried out anywhere without serious risk of undue delay or loss of efficiency, I should want to have the author of the Oxford Dictionary by my side to explain exactly what every word meant. It is an impossible Clause, and no Minister, faced with a Clause of this kind, could put his hand on his heart and say that he knew exactly what it was intended to do. Let us cut it out. It does not mean anything. Let us amend the Clause in the way that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering suggested, and bring a breath of fresh air into the railway workshops

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: We are all well aware of the great activity which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) has displayed in this matter, and I well recall the Adjournment debate—I think it was nearly a year ago—when I had the opportunity and pleasure of replying from this Bench.

Mr. Callaghan: He had a Bill, too.

Mr. Braithwaite: Subsection (2) gives to the Commission opportunities from which they would otherwise have been debarred under Section 2 of the 1947 Act, which hon. Members opposite placed on the Statute Book.
The Commission are now being authorized, through the Minister, to engage in certain activities in connection with national defence, and the proviso to subsection (2) lays it down that the Minister should
not authorise or direct the Commission to engage in
any such activity unless he is satisfied that otherwise the
work required in the interests of national defence cannot be carried out…
As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) reminded us,


the proviso goes on to speak of powers to deal with
undue delay or…loss of efficiency
in that field of dealing with matters connected with national defence.
We are now asked to extend those activities into a wider field than those which are needed purely for the national defence programme and to include activities which are desirable in the public interest. which, of course, would include national defence if those words were to be accepted and inserted. This means, as I think has been made clear from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my hon. and gallant Friend, giving to the Transport Commission an opportunity of entering into the field of trading, manufacture and, indeed, of exports.

Mr. Callaghan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Braithwaite: That is what it would involve.

Mr. Mitchison: On the Minister's authority.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am coming to that; it is one of the chief difficulties in the matter. It would not, I suggest to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), enable them to do anything in the sort of situation with which we have been confronted in the last few days in the flooded areas—

Mr. Frederick Messer (Tottenham): Why not?

Mr. Braithwaite: —because this deals with manufacture and the creation of things. From the long-term point of view, I suggest that it would not meet such a crisis as the floods.

Mr. Hynd: The Clause says "activities," not "manufacture."

Mr. Braithwaite: We are discussing making use of the Transport Commission's workshops.

Mr. Messer: Not only workshops.

Mr. Braithwaite: The debate has made it clear that what is required is manufacture, a remark which just now was cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Hargreaves: The Parliamentary Secretary is limiting the purpose of the

Amendment to the words of the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham). If the Amendment were in the Bill, in an emergency such as the present one there would be available the services of surveyors, architects and building experts, and timber and things of that kind.

Mr. Braithwaite: At this stage I am speaking about manufacture. The point I was trying to make is that this would open, principally to the British Transport Commission, the field of manufacture, and give the Commission powers, as it can have under the defence programme, over plant and machinery at present only to be used for its own purposes and for its own use. That is the chief issue as I see it.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Braithwaite: I will give way later.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Is it fair for my hon. Friend to keep interrupting the Parliamentary Secretary so that he keeps losing his place?

Mr. Braithwaite: I think that that remark will be treated with the scorn it deserves. Hon. Members opposite always seem to think that there is some offence if one takes notes and endeavours to use them to reply to hon. Members opposite.
The point I make is that if we were to do what the Amendment asks in this field of using the plant and machinery of the Commission for purposes other than for their own use, it would place the Minister in the position of having to decide at what point the public interest would make it desirable for him to put this machinery into operation and that the Commission should undertake work of any particular kind—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a full and courteous reply to the points made and when hon. Members opposite, whether erect or sedentary—

Mr. Gibson: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that?

Mr. Braithwaite: —standing up or sitting down.
They have pleaded the case with great eloquence that the Commission should have these opportunities provided by the Amendment. I have to inform the House that the Commission themselves have


expressed no wish for any extension of their powers beyond that contemplated in the Clause as it stands. I think it is felt by all who have taken part in examining the problem—and I assure hon. Members opposite that it has been examined by my right hon. Friend with the same care as he has shown in all the other fields we have been discussing in this lengthy passage of the Bill—that it would be highly invidious to place any Minister, whatever his political colour, in this position. We believe that to be the main objection to the acceptance of the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: I did suggest a test that the Minister might apply in these cases and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let us have his answer. The test was if it came to short time or no work at all and the sack for the men who are in the railway workshops now. That was the test I applied. I would not expect the Commission to ask for an extension, but I feel that perhaps the Minister would have some responsibility in the case of these men and would be glad to recognise it.

Mr. Braithwaite: Surely the short answer is that the invidious position of the Minister remains, because the situation which arose in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham and at Eastleigh, in the vicinity of Southampton, was due to a shortage of materials. The allocation of steel to the Commission, over the use of which they had full control, made it impossible for them to proceed with work in the shops dealing with rolling stock, but they had to concentrate supplies on improvements to the permanent way and to wagons. That was where the Commission themselves placed their steel allocation. So, with the best will in the world, my right hon. Friend would have been in a more invidious position had he, at that time, been called on to make that decision.
We were able to do something for the railway workers. The Minister of Supply did alleviate the position to a certain extent. But to put a Minister of whatever Government or political colour, in that position is something too invidious for the House to contemplate. As the materials position improves, so there will be work for all in the workshops. These

programmes will go ahead. There is a backlog accumulating in the case of passenger rolling stock and in other directions, and it is to this consideration that we have to give careful consideration today. That is why this proposal cannot be accepted.

Major Markham: May I ask for a little further information about this? Apparently the wishes of the present Commission ride higher than the expressed wish of Parliament, and I think that on this very important matter the Ministry should make up their mind. Is the Minister aware that under Defence Regulation 55A his predecessor made exactly these decisions we are asking him to make and they were never questioned?

Mr. Callaghan: I can well understand the irritation of my hon. Friends at the reply of the Government. I wish we were not operating under the Guillotine, so that the Parliamentary Secretary could be torn asunder in the way he deserves to be for his reply. I can only endeavour to crystallise the emotions of my hon. Friends in a few short, sharp sentences before we show in the Division Lobby the scorn we feel for that reply.
When we strip away the hesitation and verbiage of the Parliamentary Secretary it is revealed that private enterprise railway workshops who manufacture rolling stock are invincibly opposed to the railway workshops ever entering into competition with them at all—

Major Markham: That is not true.

Mr. Callaghan: I may be told that that is not true, in which case I can only say—

Major Markham: That just is not true—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) cannot intervene unless the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) gives way.

Mr. Callaghan: I can only say that the private enterprise workshops have changed their minds since they wrote to me protesting against the Private Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) 12 months ago. I supported his Bill then, and I received letters from the private


enterprise railway workshops asking me and my hon. Friends to oppose the Bill which had this object in mind. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham knows that this is the case, and he knows that we all agreed with his Bill as it stood.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government are being quite consistent in their attitude. The Parliamentary Secretary used the neutral phrase that we placed the 1947 Act on the Statute Book. That might lead the uninitiated to assume that we were in favour of the British Transport Commission not having these powers. If the Parliamentary Secretary had proceeded further with his researches, or had conveyed them to the House, he would have said that it was the speeches of his hon. Friends in this House and in another place—

Mr. D. Jones: And of himself.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of that particular sin on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. But it was certainly the Tories who, in their speeches, insisted on a limitation of the Commission's powers. Now they are being consistent, because they still want them to be limited, and the Commission to be restricted in the work they can do in the public interest.
They have widened it to the narrow extent of saying that they can do work which concerns national defence. I am not surprised at their attitude. I am never surprised when the Tory Party refuses to acknowledge the public interest, or to take any decision in the public

interest. Because of that we shall, as soon as we are able, divide the House in order to test the sincerity of those hon. Gentlemen opposite who prate about the public interest and support their private friends.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I had not intended to intervene because I thought that before the Guillotine fell we were all anxious to have a few words on Clauses 26 and 27 which refer to pensions and compensation.

Mr. Callaghan: That is after 9.30.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Guillotine falls at 9.30 when we shall leave those Clauses, so I will not make the speech which otherwise I would have made.
However, I should not like the House or the public to think that the speech which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has made is in any way a fair representation of either what happened in 1947 or what is happening now, or a fair reference to the help given by the private manufacturers to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham), when he was drawing up his Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East might have used his few precious moments in a slightly more creditable fashion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 244 Noes, 229.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[9.2 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boothby, R. J G.
Colegate, W. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bossom, A C.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bowen, E. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cranborne, Viscount


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B. R
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. G. (Bristol N.W.)
Crouch, R. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Davidson, Viscountess


Barlow, Sir John
Bullock, Capt. M.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Baxter, A. B.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Deedes, W. F.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Burden, F. F. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Campbell, Sir David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Carr, Robert
Donner, P. W.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Carson, Hon. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cary, Sir Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bevins, J. R. (T[...]xteth)
Channon, H.
Drayson, G. B.


Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Drewe, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)




Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Radmayne, M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Erroll, F. J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fell, A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robertson, Sir David


Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.
Robinson, Rotand (Blackpool, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fort, R.
Linstead, H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ryder, Capt. R E. D.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Capt. C.


Godber, J. B.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gough, C. F. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stevens, G. P.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Grimond, J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harden, J. R. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marples, A. E.
Summers, G. S.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Teeling, W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Heald, Sir Lionel
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Tilney, John


Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, R. H.


H[...], Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vane, W. M. F


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolscn, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vosper, D. F.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hollis, M. G
Nutting, Anthony
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Odey, G. W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne C.
Wellwood, W.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hurd, A. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wills, G.


Hutchison, James (S[...]otstoun)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pitman, I J.
Wood, Hon. R.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch
York, C.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)



Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Profumo, J. D.
Mr. Kaberry and



Raikes, Sir Victor
Mr. R. Thompson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.


Adams, Richard
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Delargy, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F E
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Callaghan, L. J.
Edelman, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.
Clunie, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bartley, P.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bence, C. R.
Collick, P. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Benn, Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ewart, R.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Fernyhough, W


Beswick, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fienburgh, W


Bing, G. H. C
Crosland, C. A R.
Finch, H. J.


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H S
Follick, M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cu'len, Mrs. A.
Foot, M. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P
Forman, J. C.


Boardman, H
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowden, H. W
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Bowles, F G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.







Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llan[...]Ily)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Manuel, A. C.
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C P.
Steele, T.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, F
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S. T


Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W
Sylvester, G. O.


Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morley, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hobson, C. R.
Nally, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Oldfield, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.
Tomney F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Ungoed-Thomas. Sir Lynn


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Viant, S. P.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wallace, H. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.


Janner, B
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Paton, J.
Wheeldon, W. E


Jager, George (Goole)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Popplewell, E
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Porter, G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wigg, George


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Jones, T W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Keenan, W
Pryde, D. J
Williams, David (Neath)


Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Cmdr H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Key, Rt. Hon. C W
Reeves, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


King, Dr. H. M
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rhodes, H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Richards, R.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lewis, Arthur
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt Hon. A.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wyatt, W. L.


MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, V. F.


McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McGovern, J
Shackleton, E. A. A.



McInnes, J.
Short, E. W
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P. L. E
Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen



Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 34, to leave out lines 16 to 21.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 242; Noes, 228.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
9.15 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P
Cary, Sir Robert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Black, C W
Channon, H


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boothby, R. J G
Clarke, Cal. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bossom, A C
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Bowen, E. R.
Cole, Norman


Arbuthnot, John
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Colegate, W. A.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Braise, B. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Braithwai[...]e. Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baldwin A E
Brooke Henry (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.


Barber, Anthony
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crouch, R. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G. T
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baxter, A. B.
Bullard, D. G.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullock, Capt. M
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Beamish. Maj. Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Davidson, Viscountess


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Campbell, Sir David
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carr, Robert
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Birch, Nigel
Carson, Hon. E.
Donaldson. Cmdr. C. E. McA.




Donner, P. W.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Redmayne, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Remnant, Hon. P


Drewe, C
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lambton, Viscount
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Robertson Sir David


Duthie, W. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fell, A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Finlay, Graeme
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Russell, R. S.


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, H. N
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Llewellyn, D T
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Low, A. R. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gammans, L. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stevens, G. P.


Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Storey, S.


Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Grimond, J.
Markham, Major S. F.
Summers, G. S.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, A. E.
Teeling, W.


Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon. W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir John
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Melson, A. H. E.
Tilney, John


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hay, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turner, H. F. L


Heald, Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyfle, C. E.
Turton, R. H.


Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmer
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vosper, D. F.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshaw[...])
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Odey, G. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Holt, A. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Webbe, Sir H.(London &amp; Westminster)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wellwood, W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Osborne, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Horobin, I. M.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Perkins, W R. D
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wills, G.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wood, Hon. R


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J
York, C.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch



Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Mr. Conant and Mr. Kaberry.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, J. D.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bowles, F. G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Adams, Richard
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Albu, A. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Deer, G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dodds, N. N.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Ha[...]kney, S.)
Dugdale, RI. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Baird, J.
Callaghan, L. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Balfour, A.
Carmichael, J.
Edelman, M.


Barnes, At. Hon. A. J.
Chapman, W. D
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Bartley, P.
Chetwynd, G. R
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bence. C. R.
Clunie, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bann, Wedgwood
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Benson. G.
Collick, P. H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Beswick, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bing, G. H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Ewart, R.


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Fienburgh, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Finch, H. J.


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs, A.
Follick, M.


Bowden, H. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Foot, M. M.







Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Freeman, John (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, J.


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigs)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C P.
Steele, T.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (LlanaIly)
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S. T.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morley, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hannan, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpe[...]h)


Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hargreaves, A.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W)


Hastings, S.
Nally, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Herbison, Miss M
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Tomney, F.


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wallace, H. W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pannell, Charles
West, D. G.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Parker, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Popplewell, E
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Porter, G.
Wigg, George


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wilkins, W. A


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr H
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Kenyon, C.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Key, Rt. Hon C W
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rhodes, H.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Richards, R.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, V. F


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Younger, Rt Hon K


MacColl, J. E.
Ross, William



McGhee, H. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGovern, J
Short. E. W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Allen.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I beg to move, in page 34, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where one of the activities mentioned in subsection (3) of section two of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the carrying on by the Commission of the activities of undertakings acquired by them), was the provision of a garage for the passengers of the undertaking and for other persons making use of the services of the undertaking, the Commission shall have power notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Transport Act, 1947, for the purpose of any garage so provided to maintain and repair and to purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons.
This is another effort to free the railways from the fetters which make trading difficult for them. The Amendment contains a lot of words, but all it adds up

to is this: In the old days before nationalisation there was a railway garage, situated on railway property and run in conjunction with the railway hotel, which was a great convenience to the customers of the hotel and served a greater purpose than that of a garage because it was a kind of passenger railhead. One got out of one's farm wagon, put one's vehicle in the garage and travelled by main-line train to London or to some other city. It served a dual railway purpose.
That was in the gay old days before nationalisation. But when the undertaking was vested in the Commission—and I would indicate that I desire to have the judgment of this House and not of the Commission on my Amendment—


under the terms of the 1947 Act that garage, after three years had elapsed from vesting day, could no longer give a full garage service. It was stopped by law from giving the service which a decent garage gives—mending one's car, supplying one with petrol and oil, and supplying the odd spare bulb for one's light. The garage was prevented from doing all those things by the Act of 1947.
I venture to submit to the House that that is not very sensible if our wish is that proper railway activities should be conducted by the railways unfettered, in order that they may have a free trading position in this matter for their railway purposes. For the benefit of those hon. Members opposite who become particularly savage at any reference to an extension of State trading, may I say that that is not at all what the Amendment seeks to achieve? I apologise to the House for the home-made nature of the drafting and I hope that if the principle finds favour with the House and the Minister, then the Minister, with the resources available to him, will find the right form of words.
What it is meant to mean is that where, before nationalisation, there was a railway garage run by the railway, or where, since that time, the railways have taken over a garage pursuant to the powers conferred upon them by this House, then this House will let them conduct an ordinary, normal garage service at the garage. Why on earth should they not do so?

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Braithwaite: I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) will not think me discourteous if my reply is somewhat telegraphic in character. The 1947 Act made it quite clear that the British Transport Commission's Hotels Executive were not to engage in trade outside their normal functions or to conduct their garage business. I agree at once with my hon and learned Friend that it would be a great benefit to those using the hotel in York—and I think I know the hotel he has in mind—were it possible for them to have these facilities.
It is not our view, however, that the British Transport Commission should extend their trading activities in this way.

Nonetheless, I feel that there is a solution to my hon. and learned Friend's difficulty—namely, that the Hotels Executive should lease the garage to a private enterprise proprietor who will be able to provide the facilities which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. The Hotels Executive would have the revenue from the letting of this property with which to support their finances, and all would be well. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. H. Morrison: I admit that we were rather caught bending in the way in which apparently some Amendment was accepted in 1947 but I am bound to say that, having listened to the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) and to the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)—the Seconder did not say very much—I cannot see any rational objection to the suggestion that a hotel—I do not care whether it is a Transport Commission hotel or whose it is—which has a garage in connection with the hotel—which is quite common—should use the garage for incidental repairs to cars which are left there. That is not only desirable as a matter of business for the hotel but is desirable for the convenience of the people staying at the hotel.
I have not the least idea why these words crept into the Act of 1947. I do not know where I was at the time—perhaps I was in Hammersmith Hospital or somewhere—but I am not criticising anybody I just cannot understand it. In any event, if I were converted the other way in 1947, I am converted this way now by the hon. and learned Member for York. I hope the Minister will pop up to say that he accepts the Amendment. If not, I hope that the two hon. Members who moved it and such of their friends as will support them will vote for the Amendment, because it is no good moving an Amendment and then running away. It is a very innocent Amendment and I very much hope that the House will be good enough to agree to it.

Mr. Powell: I intervene in these last 60 seconds before 9.30 because I hope that the railwaymen of this country will know that the Opposition have twice divided on the same point in order to prevent my right hon. Friend from explaining to them and to the country the


improved conditions of compensation which he intends to make under this Bill. I think it is only right that railwaymen should realise that that is the attitude of their soi-disant friends.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided; Ayes, 233; Noes, 250.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Adams, Richard
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Albu, A. H.
Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A M. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pargiter, G. A


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J


Awbery, S. S.
Hannan, W.
Paton, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.


Baird, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Popplewell, E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Bartley, P.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, C. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, G.
Hobson, C. [...].
Pryde, D. J.


Beswick, F.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bing, G. H. C.
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Richards, R.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W


Callaghan, L. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Carmichael, J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chetwynd, G R
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J.


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, P. H.
Kenyon, C
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGovern, G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, H. J
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dodds, N. N.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Donnelly, D. L.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J
Turner-Samuels, M


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Messer, F
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G. R
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Fienburgh, W.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Finch, H. J.
Morley, R.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Follick, M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
West, D. G.


Foot, M. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Wheeldon, W E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Nally, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
OldfieId, W. H.
Wigg, George


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C A B


Glanville, James
Orbach, M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.




Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)






Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A



Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)
Wyatt, W. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Yates, V. F.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wallace.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maude, Angus


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fyfe, Rt. HOPI. Sir David Maxwell
Medlicott, Brig. F


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, Rt. Han. T. D. (Pollok)
Mellor, Sir John


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Molson, A. H. E


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gammans, L. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Arbuth[...]ot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Nabarro, G. D. N


Baker, P. A. D.
Godber, J. B.
Nicholls, Harma[...]


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Baldwin, A. E
Gough, C. F. H
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Gower, H. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Barlow, Sir John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Baxter, A. B.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nutting, Anthony


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimond, J.
Odey, G. W.


Beamish, Maj. Turton
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim. N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborne. C.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air Cdr A. V. (Macclesfield)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Perkins, W. R. D.


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Peyton, J. W W.


Bossom, A. C.
Heath, Edward
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bowen, E. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Pitman, I. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Powell, J. Enoch


Brains, B. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Profumo, J. D.


Browns, Jack (Govan)
Hollis, M. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bullard, D. G.
Holt, A. F.
Redmayne, M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Renton, D. L. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Robertson, Sir David


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, LL-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roomer, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H.
Hutchison, James (Soetstoun)
Russell, R. S


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Soott, R. Donald


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Keeling, Sir Edward
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lambert, Col. G
Soames, Capt. C.


Crouch, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S_)


Crowder, [...]etre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Stevens, G. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Storey, S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich. S.)


Dodds-Parker, A B.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. C. (King's Norton)
Studholme, H. G.


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Summers, G. S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Low, A. R. W.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Teeling, W.


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon Sir T. (Richmond)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Tilney, John


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Turner, H. F. L


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, R. H


Erroll, F. J.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fell, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Markham, Major S. F.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Miss l. (Tynemouth)


Fort, R.
Marptes, A. E.








Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wood, Hon. R.


Watkinson, H. A.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
York, C.


Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminstet)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)



Wellwood, W.
Wills, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.


Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Half-past Nine o'Clock.

Clause 26.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PENSION RIGHTS.)

Amendment made: In page 34, line 36, after "undertaking," insert:
of the powers and duties conferred on the Commission and the Minister by this Act in connection with the reorganisation of that part of the Commission's undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause 27.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)

Amendments made: In page 36, line 9, after "undertaking," insert:
of the powers and duties conferred on the Commission and the Minister by this Act in connection with the reorganisation of that part of the Commission's undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways.

In line 42, leave out from "and," to "House," in line 44, and insert:
no Regulations shall be made by the Minister under this subsection unless a draft of the Regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — 29.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO COASTAL SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 38, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(3) At the end of the said section seventy-one there shall be added the following subsection—
(5) The Committee shall keep a register of agreements as to traffic, rates (including through rates) and similar matters made between persons engaged in or representing the interests of on the one hand coastal shipping and on the other the business of carrying goods by road for hire or reward and the Committee shall report to the Minister and the Minister shall communicate to licensing authorities acting under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which provides for the licensing of goods vehicles) agreements so registered.
This Amendment follows on an earlier discussion we had about the exclusion of the road hauliers from the arrangements

under which coastwise shipping enterprises may appeal against the rates that are charged by the railways. I do not think there is need to detain the House very long on this, except to say that the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee which was set up by the 1947 Act was beginning to serve a very useful purpose. It brought together the coastal shipping interests and the road and rail long distance haulage interests, in the person of the British Transport Commission.
It was possible for the coastal shipping interests, who found themselves under a difficulty in maintaining their services, to bring before the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, and therefore before the Commission, the difficulties under which they laboured, and it was possible for the Commission to agree that certain rates should be charged by their own enterprises, namely, by the railways and by the Road Haulage Executive's long-distance lorries, which would not have the effect of undermining coastwise shipping and putting it out of the market.
The Bill is emasculating these useful functions of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee. From now on, under the Clause to which we have put down this Amendment, the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee will be able only to discuss difficulties that arise in the coastal shipping interest and it will be impossible for the Commission to enter into arrangements which will bind anybody but their own railways. The Minister is attempting to meet the situation by including in his Clause
persons representing the interests of carriers of goods by road for hire or reward.
We all know how anarchic the road haulage industry is. Whatever may be talked about it in the atmosphere of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, the road hauliers cannot undertake gentlemen's agreements that stand any chance of being observed by their members.
9.45 p.m.
If the history of this industry is to be any guide in the future, the whole process of undercutting each other—never mind undercutting the coastal shipping—is to go on once more. We are trying to remedy one of the evils which will


fall upon coastwise shipping arising from the Bill. The way we are attempting to remedy this evil is by trying to give the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee some powers they do not possess at the present time.
This Amendment goes with those we did not move yesterday to Clause 8 in respect of the licensing decision, and although it would be out of order if I referred to those at any length, perhaps I may do so in passing. Briefly, we suggest that the persons who are to be added to the committee as representing the road hauliers should be able to enter into agreements with the railways and the coastwise shipping people for the maintenance of certain rates. The Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, when this three-cornered agreement has been reached, should keep a register of certain agreements as to traffic rates and similar matters, and report the agreements that are made for the maintenance of proper rates to the Minister and the Minister shall communicate those rates to the licensing authorities for road haulage vehicles.
Our earlier Amendments to Clause 8, which were not called, would then have provided, among other matters, that a licensing authority, when considering an application for a renewal of licence by a road haulier, must take into account whether or not he had observed the agreements entered into on his behalf by his representatives on the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee. If the Minister were to accept the principle of this Amendment, some further machinery would have to be put in in another place. However, I do not suppose that would deter the right hon. Gentleman from accepting the principle now in view of the fact that we have now reached the end of the Report stage.
I suggest to the Minister that this is the only way in which he can put teeth into his committee, having emasculated its functions by withdrawing the responsibility of the Transport Commission for road haulage. He could only give back again to the coastal shipping people the protection they deserve by giving the committee the opportunity of entering into agreements which should be observed by road hauliers when they are operating their enterprises. This seems

to us to be an extremely sensible Amendment, and one that I do not think the Minister could refuse on grounds of equity to the coastwise shipping interests.
I see that the Minister has put his name to the next Amendment, to line 14, which frankly, if I may say so in advance, is merely a piece of persiflage—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Callaghan: Then it is verbiage. I am sure that if the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is put to it, it must be both persiflage and verbiage.
Certainly, it consists of a number of words which mean very little when added up, and will not give to the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee any executive functions. We want them to have real powers. We do not want this to be a committee which will talk and do nothing; we want it to be a committee which will operate in the interests of coastal shipping and of the proper regulation of road, rail and coastwise shipping interests. I hope that on this last occasion, when we are entering the straight of the Report stage, the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hargreaves: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman had really been so anxious that the concluding stages of the Report stage should end in harmony and good will—as, indeed, I hope he still is; I certainly am—I wish that it had been found possible so to conduct the previous business that I should have been able to say something about compensation for railwaymen.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Minister could have persuaded his hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) not to move his Amendment, he would have had that opportunity.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The record will show that there were three divisions in an unusually short time, and, no doubt, railwaymen and others will draw their own conclusions.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. Is it not correct to say that the authority which determines the utilisation of time in this Chamber is the Government, and that if they choose to afford the time necessary to make known their policy in


regard to the future of railway employees, they can find such time quite adequately?

Mr. Speaker: In the case of a Bill going through its various stages, the consumption of time is regulated not by the Opposition nor by the Government, but by a sense of compromise and good feeling between the two.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Amendment must be considered in conjunction with two Amendments to Clause 8 which were not moved yesterday. The hon. Gentleman said that he was very anxious to put teeth into the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee and that it should not be a body to engage merely in talking but would do something. Were the Amendment accepted, it would certainly do something, but it would be wholly contrary to the purposes for which this body was set up.
If the Amendment were accepted, a sanction would be imposed which would take the form of the revocation of the A and B licences, this sanction being used for the enforcement of any rate agreement arrived at by road hauliers for the protection of coastal shipping. It would be a sanction that would impose this suspension of the A and B licences.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the anarchy in the road haulage industry. If he is really anxious, as we all are, to maintain where it exists, and to introduce where it does not exist, a sense of trade discipline into the road haulage industry, I wonder how much he thinks his continual wounding words are making that more and more difficult?
It is our belief that the Road Haulage Association throughout very difficult periods in the last few years—difficulties imposed upon them by the action of the last Government: the arbitrary 25-mile limit, the capricious exercise of permits and many other difficulties—have kept their membership and their standard of behaviour remarkably well. We are anxious that the best elements in that Association should be encouraged, and we very much hope to see a growing sense of discipline among their members, and, indeed, in many other activities of life also. They have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the work they are doing.
We believe that the freedom that they are now to exercise will help them in

coming to worth-while agreements among each other and with their co-operators in the field of transport. If the hon. Gentleman really believes in the value of responsibility and that the only way to learn to play the harp is to play the harp, he ought to welcome the chance that will be given to road hauliers to show the opportunity for decision, which, we are sure, they are fully capable of making.
Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, however, the licensing authority would come in as being responsible for the detailed enforcement of individual charges made by road hauliers. Earlier, I was very much reproved because in Clause 8 I recommended to the House certain things for which, it was said, I had no endorsement from the licensing authorities; but I cannot imagine a task which the licensing authorities would find more wholly inappropriate to their composition and to their desires than this proposed procedure. On that ground alone, the Amendment should fall.
But that is not the only objection to it. The Amendment would turn the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee into a body for the registration of agreements. One of the features of this Committee which has given it its value and success has been its advisory nature. It would be quite wrong to saddle it with an executive task of this kind. Were such a task imposed on it it would very quickly break up. We know perfectly well that the party opposite do not like voluntary agreements, but prefer statutory enforcements and undertakings with the sanction of the law behind every association. We do not share that desire for constant legal obligations. We believe in voluntary association and we are quite sure that the best way to make this voluntary association effective is to move along the lines advocated by the Government.
When I come to the next Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), whose identification with it we all welcome and which gives it added point and quality, I shall hope to give some indication of how we hope to see this most important advisory body become more effective. So I hope, in an effort to show that harmony which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East


asked me to show and after my convincing explanation, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. D. Jones: Whom did the Minister convince?

Mr. Sparks: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has told the whole story.

Mr. Gibson: The old, old story.

Mr. Sparks: I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman refers to the relevant Section of the Transport Act, 1947, unless I am very much mistaken he will find that the Minister has certain powers over the Commission in enforcing agreements arrived at by the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee.
That Committee was previously composed of two elements, the coastal shipping advisory people and the British Transport Commission, and the powers given in the 1947 Act, amongst others, were to fix charges and arrange throughout charges between the undertakings. I believe that I am right in saying that if the Transport Commission fail to observe the agreements the Minister has certain powers to direct them to carry out their obligations.
Under this Bill the Minister has a third element which he is introducing into the Advisory Committee, namely, the road hauliers. I believe that we are quite entitled to ask that, in regard to the road hauliers, the Minister should exercise similar restraint to that which I believe he has the power to exercise in the case of the Transport Commission. Therefore, if the activities of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee are to be effective, it is necessary that all three bodies—the Advisory Committee, the Transport Commission and the road hauliers—should honourably observe the rates and charges and throughout services agreed upon.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From where does the hon. Member get the assumption that I was putting road hauliers on the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee? Here we are dealing with a method of imposing some automatic sanction against road hauliers at the orders of other people. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment about the appointment of road hauliers to

the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee.

Mr. Sparks: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman reads the Clause he will see that he is altering the constitution of the Committee and introducing into it, apart from the coastal shipping interests and the Transport Commission, a private road hauliers' element.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was referring to the Amendment. This Amendment does not deal with that matter. When I come to the next Amendment, I shall make a reference to what we propose in regard to the composition, including the moment when it would appear appropriate to put road hauliers on this Committee. That will be made in another place. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for taking it for granted he would have known that when, of course, he could not possibly have known it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: It meets my point if the Minister admits there is an obligation on the part of private road haulage interests represented on the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee to observe the agreement entered into in regard to freight rates and charges, as there is an obligation on the Commission. If the Minister now admits the necessity for that, he has conceded our point to a certain extent, and I shall listen with interest to what he has to say on the next Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This is quite an important Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I think it deserves the consideration of the House, even at this late stage. In conformity with the general character of what the Labour Party is trying to do to the Bill, it provides for streamlining, and for the delegation of executive functions ultimately to those concerned. The hon. Gentleman was at pains to say that the road haulage industry was an anarchic organisation. It needed discipline.
In so far as the Road Haulage Association has disciplined itself for the purpose of putting forward coherent and clear Amendments to the Bill, we welcome that discipline. But in so far as the hon. Gentleman wishes that there shall be a thoroughly groomed, efficient


Road Haulage Association, obedient to the dictates of someone else and carrying out the wishes of some supreme authority in road transport, we cannot in the least agree. I would welcome the prospect of an increase in ill-discipline on the road if discipline means what we have had under the Transport Commission's operations for the last few years.
Here we clearly see the mood of the Labour Party working. My right hon. Friend has made certain amendments to the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say that the committee is not to be entirely advisory, but has to do certain other things. It should keep a register of agreements as to traffics and rates. When it has got to know what all these rates and traffics are, and has done a bit of analytical work, and prepared a few schedules, it is to send all those things to the Minister. The Minister then is to communicate to the licensing authorities.
I stop there, because this is the most sinister intention that I have so far seen suggested in the Amendments to this Bill put forward by the Labour Party. For the first time they suppose a set of conditions under which the licensing authorities shall work. They are suggesting that these facts and figures accumulated by the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee should be handed on to the licensing authorities, presuming that the licensing authorities are to neglect the general considerations they take into account when granting or withholding licences, and are to take this other series of operations into account, The Labour Party are not at all averse to using the impersonal, impartial and completely judicial character of the licensing authorities as a new device to carry out their wishes. That comes out very nicely in this Amendment. I call the attention of the House to what is being done here.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is not the noble Lord falling into the same error as the Minister fell into when he suggested that the licensing authority had no regard to the charges made for conveyance? That is their job in relation to passengers. Presumably, the noble Lord is overlooking that. They take fares into account. They are enjoined to do so.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Yes. They take fares into account, but here is a

whole series of new matters that they are required to take into account. What is meant by the words:
agreements as to traffic"?
What are those agreements which are to be taken into account? The whole Amendment is vague and ill-considered, and it has been brought in at a late stage. It is an after-thought produced by the former Attorney-General, whose absence we deplore because at least he is a person who can put a coherent case and very ably argue when he chooses to do so. But, for some reason best known to himself, the former Attorney-General does not appear very frequently during our debates. When he does he produces an interesting and coherent argument, but he is absent tonight.
Looking at the names associated with this Amendment and having heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I suggest that we cannot do other than congratulate my right hon. Friend on having turned down the whole purport of this Amendment and convinced us that it is unworkable.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 38, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(4) As from the passing of this Act it shall be part of the functions of the said Committee to take all steps open to them to secure the establishment and maintenance of suitable arrangements for promoting consultation between persons affording services and facilities for the carriage of goods by coastal shipping and by rail, road and inland waterway. respectively.
I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). He is quite right. I have no wish either to mislead him or to challenge his accuracy unjustly. The situation is, as he says, that it is true that under subsection (2, c) provision is made for the addition to the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee of:
such number of persons representing the interests of carriers of goods by road for hire or reward as the Minister thinks fit, to be appointed by him after consultation with such body or bodies as he thinks fit, being a body or bodies who appear to him to be representative of those carriers".
But it is my intention, or the intention of the Government—because I am referring to what will happen in another place—temporarily to hold up the application of this subsection. This is in accordance


with the views of the Commission. It is undeniable that there is a certain reluctance in some quarters to disclose confidential trade rates to trade competitors in advance of a general organisation among all road hauliers which is as good as that organisation which the Road Haulage Association has among its own members.
I hope that the time will not be long delayed. I was for a moment misled by having lived with this problem so much lately. I thought that the hon. Gentleman also knew, though of course he could not possibly have known, that we propose to recommend in another place the temporary holding up of this provision. I hope that it will not be long before it is possible to see all the sections of the transport industry sitting down together harmoniously and effectively trying to secure ordered competition. [Interruption.] Certainly. I think it is a much more cheerful prospect than the dragooning of the last few years, which, despite the fact that thousands of people were deprived of their livelihood, has completely failed to give us the integrated system that we were promised. That Amendment will be introduced in another place, and then we shall have the provisions in this subsection retained, but their application only temporarily delayed.
The Amendment which I am moving enjoins the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee to promote consultations between the various forms of transport, including persons affording services and facilities to meet the needs of coastal shipping and representing the railways and inland waterways, respectively. The hon. Gentleman at first said that it was persiflage and then that it was verbiage, but it seems to me to be a highly desirable objective. The conference arrangement. as the House will well know, established between the railways and the coastal shipping lines before the war and continued since, has worked extremely well, and we have no intention whatever of that work being interfered with or jeopardised by the addition of road hauliers or others to the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee or by any of the powers with which that admirable Committee is equipped.
It is the view of the Commission and the Chamber of Shipping that the Advisory Committee should not—and there is no suggestion that they should—assume control of these conferences or

supervise their work. This arrangement has done splendid work on a voluntary basis, and the Government are confident that it will continue to do so, but it does appear to us that, as a preliminary to the further Amendment to be introduced in another place, the addition of these words would appeal as meeting a desirable public need.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: May I take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for moving this Amendment and for generally having the interests of the coastwise shipping industry at heart?, All concerned will be very grateful to. him.

Mr. Nabarro: I want to add my word of thanks to those expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller), because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite observed a few moments ago, my name stands in support of that of my right hon. Friend on this Amendment, and, indeed, stood in support of a similar Amendment, which, unfortunately, could not be called on the Committee stage.
What the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) conveniently omitted to make reference to a few moments ago was the point at which interests conflict between coastal shipping and the railways. In fact, 80 per cent. of coastwise travel is here concerned with coal. The road hauliers in competition with coastwise shipping are very limited indeed. There is only a very narrow sector in which the road haulage interest can find itself in competition with coastwise shipping. I think it is most desirable, in the interests of delivering coal and other solid fuel, largely to nationalised undertakings in London and the South of England, that this form of collaboration in regard to rates between coastal shipping interests and the railways should be placed on a permanent and, indeed, statutory basis. It has long been a subject of complaint from householders, as well as from industrial consumers in London and elsewhere in the South, that their solid fuel costs them too much.
The railways in certain instances could have an unfair advantage over coastal shipping. They could, in fact, subsidise at the expense of certain routes that were in conflict with coastal shipping inter-


ests the cost of transportation and make up their losses in other directions where there was no such conflict with coastal shipping interests. It was therefore desirable, to use a word of which hon. Members opposite are rather too fond, that there should be an attempt to integrate the interests of the two authorities especially as, for the most part, it is a nationalised railway undertaking delivering coal from a nationalised pit to a nationalised gas works and a nationalised electricity undertaking in London. That is 75 to 80 per cent. of the traffic.
10.15 p.m.
I think my right hon. Friend has behaved with commendable generosity in this matter. He has sponsored this Amendment right through the Committee stage, carried through a great deal of negotiation with the Chamber of Shipping and with my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and I am glad that such a satisfactory solution has been achieved. My last word is to say to my right hon. Friend that I hope the delay to which he referred will not last any longer than the time that will elapse between this Measure leaving this Chamber and going to another place. The delay, I hope, will be minimised.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 34.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 40, line 40. at end, insert:
and 'undue preference' has the meaning assigned to it by section fifty-five of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, that is to say, it includes an undue preference or an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect, in favour of or against any person or particular class of persons or any particular description of traffic."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF SECTION THIRTY-NINE OF THE ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC ACT, 1933, AND SECTION THIRTY-NINE OF THE RAILWAYS ACT, 1921.)

Orders of the Day — PART I

The Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, s. 39

1.—(1) Section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall apply to all charges made or proposed to be made by the Commission for the carriage of merchandise by railway (other than standard charges and maximum charges) and not merely to agreed charges and exceptional rates made or charged by them, and the said section thirty-nine shall, with the necessary adaptations, have effect accordingly.

(2) The amendments of the said section thirty-nine effected, as respects charges made otherwise than under a charges scheme, by subsection (5) of section eighty-three of the Transport Act, 1947, shall, notwithstanding anything in subsection (I) of the said section eighty-three, have effect in relation to all charges made or proposed to be made by the Commission for the carriage of merchandise by railway, whether under a charges scheme or not.

2.—(1) If a representation under the said section thirty-nine is made wholly or partly on the ground that the charges in question place coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage and the Tribunal are or opinion that the body making the representation has a reasonable case to make in that respect, they shall, if the said body requests them so to do, instead of publishing the representation and holding an inquiry under subsection (3) of that section, give, as quickly as may be, to the said body and the Commission an opportunity of calling witnesses and being heard as to the representation and, if. after hearing the said body, the Commission and their respective witnesses, considering the matters which they are required by the said subsection (3) to investigate and having regard to all the considerations to which they are required by the said subsection (3) to have regard, the Tribunal are of opinion that. having regard to all the circumstances, the charges in question or any of them—

(a) place coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage in the competition, or
(b) are inadequate, having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which they are made,
and that in either case the action of the Commission is by reason of its prejudicial effect upon the interests of coastwise shipping undesirable in the national interests, may make any such order as they might have made upon an inquiry under the said subsection (3).

(2) Where the Tribunal make an order by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the Commission shall publish the order in such manner as the Tribunal may direct, and if, within one month from the publication of the order as aforesaid, any body which, in the opinion of the Minister, is properly representative of the interests of traders notifies the Tribunal that it objects to the order, the Tribunal shall hold an inquiry on the matter in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of the said section thirty-nine and shall, upon that inquiry, revoke or vary their previous order, or refuse to revoke or vary it, as may be appropriate.

(3) The reference in subsection (5) of the said section thirty-nine to orders made under subsection (4) of that section shall be deemed to include a reference to any order of the Tribunal made under the preceding provisions of this paragraph.

3. It is hereby declared that the powers of the Tribunal under the said section thirty-nine extend to cancelling or varying any agreement made or deemed to be made under subsection (2) of section nineteen of this Act, but where any agreement in writing made or deemed to


be made as aforesaid regulates, for a specified period of not less than three months or for a period determinable by not less than three months notice, any charges to be made by the Commission, the following provisions shall have effect in relation to any order of the Tribunal under sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph cancelling that agreement or varying it in relation to any charges to be made during that period.

(a) any trader who is a party to that agreement may within one month from the publication of the order under sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph apply to the Tribunal for cancellation or variation of the order in so far as it so cancels or varies the agreement;
(b) the order, in so far as it so cancels or varies that agreement, shall not take effect until the expiration of the said period of one month and, if, within that period, an application is made under this paragraph, shall not take effect unless and until the Tribunal, having given the applicant, the Commission and the body on whose representation the order was made an opportunity of being heard, confirm the order, in so far as it so cancels or varies the agreement, with or without variation:

Provided that the Tribunal shall not separately deal with the application if an inquiry falls to be held into the order under the said sub-paragraph (2) and in that event the order, in so far as it so cancels or varies the agreement as aforesaid, shall not take effect unless and until the Tribunal, having held the inquiry, confirm the order in so far as it so cancels or varies the agreement, with or without variation.

4. An additional member of the Tribunal appointed from the shipping panel under the said section thirty-nine shall not be paid any such remuneration or expenses as are provided for by paragraph 7 of the Tenth Scehdule to the Transport Act, 1947.

5. The said section thirty-nine and the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall apply in relation to any body, which in the opinion of the Minister, is properly representative of the interests of harbour authorities, as it applies in relation to the bodies representative of coastal carriers mentioned in subsection (2) of the said section thirty-nine, but as if—

(a) the references to charges made in competition with coastal carriers were references to charges made for the carriage of merchandise by rail to or from harbours where port facilities are provided by the Commission; and
(b) in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said section thirty-nine and in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, the words "in the competition" were omitted; and
(c) in the said subsection (4) and the said sub-paragraph (1) the references to the interests of coastwise shipping were references to the interests of harbour authorities; and
(d) so much of the said section thirty-nine and the preceding provisions of this Schedule as relates to the shipping panel were omitted.

6. In this Part of this Schedule, "trader" means a person sending or receiving, or desiring to send or receive, merchandise by railway, and "harbour authority" means any person or body of persons (other than the Commission) in whom powers and duties of improving, maintaining or managing a harbour are vested by or under any Act of Parliament.

Orders of the Day — PART II

The Railways Act, 1921. s. 39

1. Section thirty-nine of the Railways Act. 1921, shall extend to all charges made or to he made by the Commission for the carriage of merchandise by railway (other than standard charges and maximum charges) and not merely to agreed charges and exceptional rates made or charged by them, and the said section thirty-nine shall, with the necessary adaptations, have effect accordingly.

2. The said section thirty-nine, in relation to the Commission, shall have effect as if after the words "canals," in both places where that word occurs, there were inserted the words "or canal carriers."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
I made, I fear, at somewhat great length this afternoon a considerable speech on the various Amendments that we have introduced in regard to the charging provisions of this Bill. At that time, I said that the whole of the new Schedule would, in fact, fall for discussion during our debate. There is, I am advised, no important part of this Schedule to which some reference was not made in the course of my speech and subsequent speeches, and I do not think there is anything I can add at this stage in commending the Schedule to the House.
I would only say, as we are nearing the conclusion of the Report stage, how glad I am that it has fallen to me to be able to sponsor in Parliament that part of this Measure which, I think, redeems a debt we all owe to the British Railway system and which will, I hope, put them in a better competitive position. All the Amendments which have been moved, will, we believe, add value to the very substantial improvement in the railways' competitive position which the Bill was designed to achieve.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(RIGHTS OF OBTAINING LICENCES FOR FIVE YEARS FOR GOODS VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE.)

Amendment made: In page 45, line 18, leave out "three," and insert "six." —[Mr. Braithwaite.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(RATES OF TRANSPORT LEVY.)

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move in page 46, line 45, to leave out "exceeds one ton." and to insert "is more than two tons."
It is now 20 minutes past 10 and the Guillotine falls at half past, and we are to discuss this Amendment. The Minister on the last Amendment thought that the provision which he said he intends to obtain in another place had already gone out of the Bill, whereas it was staring him in the face in the Bill, which just shows into what a muddle this preposterous Guillotine is getting us. Now we are going to discuss the levy in nine minutes. Our proposal is that the application of the levy should be extended from vehicles up to one ton to vehicles up to two tons. [Interruption.] I do not know why the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is sitting over there with a threatening look at me. Does he think that we have to be ordered by him as to when we should put something down on the Order Paper? I am surprised at him.
This Bill provides that there is an exemption for vehicles of not more than one ton unladen weight. That will only exclude from the levy very very light vehicles and, whilst there is a fair number of them, nevertheless that number is bound to be limited. It appears to us from the discussions we have had that there was and remains a case for the exclusion of vehicles engaged in the retail distribution of goods. [Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would let us get on with things it would be much better, that is, if he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He is a very good one.

Mr. Morrison: Well, he should not talk so much. I will give him some private tips when I see him again.
It has been argued very earnestly that retail trade vehicles should be exempted from the levy, and a good many of those

are of about the one ton limit. Indeed, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South, whom I am glad to see in his place, has put down an Amendment that the limit should be one and a half tons. I do not know what the Minister's attitude was or is, but there was an indication on the Committee stage that he would make a concession on this matter. We have not heard anything definite since and I will leave the Minister as much time as possible to tell us whether he will give us a concession in another place, which is probably the only stage at which he can do it now.
Another argument has been put forward with regard to local authority vehicles. Retail vehicles really do not come into this business of damaging or not damaging the railways. They operate within a limited radius, and I do not see why they should pay any levy. I really do not see also why a sanitary authority—[Interruption.] There are sanitary authorities. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite know it. I do not see why sanitary authority vehicles used to collect refuse, most of which are vehicles of two tons and over, or other vehicles doing other work in connection with local authorities, should be brought within the application of this levy.
Why should the ratepayers be burdened merely because the Government want to play the game of private interests in road commercial transport? That is what the Minister is doing. He is imposing a burden on the ratepayers to compensate the British Transport Commission for any damage that he is inflicting upon them purely because of the Conservative Party's wish to help road commercial transport of a private character. That is what is comes to.
The whole basis of the levy and the existence of the levy is wrong. If the Government come along and proceed to do this damage they should make it up out of the Treasury in one way or another and not put this direct taxation on commercial road transport. It is a burden not only upon road transport but upon the retail trade, and it will be one of the cost factors in that trade, including the conveyance of food. It is an additional burden on the ratepayers and local government authorities.
Why should these people be brought in for the purpose of compensating the


Commission because the Government are damaging them by doing a good turn to their friends with road transport interests, who supported them in the Election and probably contributed materially to the funds of the Conservative Party. They were not the only people; I dare say the brewers also contributed to the Tory Party funds. That is what we shall go on thinking until the Conservative Party has the honesty and the decency to publish their balance sheet.
We take the view that this exemption should extend to vehicles of two tons and we think that, incidentally, it will be of assistance to the various classes of users I have mentioned. The British Road Federation have put up some very sound arguments against the levy—and so did hon. Gentlemen opposite. They feel the same way now; but they have not the courage to defy the Whips or to bring pressure to bear upon the Government. They are mere Lobby fodder. Here we are—under this abominable—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: rose—

Mr. Morrison: It is no good the noble Lord getting cross. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should keep quiet and let the debate go on. It is not our Guillotine; it is the Government's, voted for by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I submit that the proceedings, both in Committee and on the Report stage, have been a disgrace to Parliamentary procedure, and they should never have been conducted in this way.
I now invite the Minister to finish the Report stage as a gentleman, being forthcoming, handsome and generous, and I ask him to accept this moderate Amendment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Despite the last observations of the right hon. Gentleman,

I feel it is necessary to answer once more the ungenerous and untrue jibe about money being contributed by road haulage interests. If I can make any comment about it, it is this, that if I were being paid for the columns of speech I have made in the last three months I should have a fortune now.

Anticipating that the right hon. Gentleman would have a brainwave last night and put down this Amendment, I have been very careful, throughout our discussions, not to say whether we proposed to raise the limit of exemption. Even now, after such an interesting speech as we have had, the House should consider some of the consequences that would flow if we listened to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. Under the Bill as it is now drawn some 380,000 out of 965,000 vehicles will escape the levy altogether. If the exemption were raised to vehicles of two tons the figure would increase by 185,000, so that 565.000 would not pay the levy.

If the Amendment were accepted the levy charge would have to rise from 13s. 6d. to 16s. 6d., and I cannot believe that that would be welcomed, especially by those local authorities for whom the right hon. Gentleman claimed to speak. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be studied in more moderation. I am sorry not to have heard a speech which might have been still more to the point, that of my noble Friend—

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 236.

Division No. 84]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullard, D. G.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Bullock, Capt. M.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bullus, Wing Commander E E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Birch, Nigel
Burden, F F. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bishop, F. P.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Black, C. W.
Campbell, Sir David


Astor, Hon. J. J
Boothby, R. J. G
Carr, Robert


Baker, P. A. D.
Bossom, A. C.
Carson, Hon E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Channon, H.


Barber, Anthony
Braine, B. R.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Barlow, Sir John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cole, Norman


Beamish, Maj. Tutton
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Colegate, W. A.




Conant, Maj. R J. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cranborne, Viscount
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. St
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crouch, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones. A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Peter (Healey)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robertson, Sir David


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donner, P. W
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Russell, R. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Sandys, Rt. Hon D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Duthie, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A T
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Roohdate)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, R. Donald


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fell, A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Finlay, Graeme
Low, A. R. W.
Soames, Capt. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fort, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir David Maxwell
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gammans, L. D.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Summers, G. S.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Teeling, W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gough, C. F. H.
Markham, Major S. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Cower, H. R
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. G. N.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marples, A. E.
Tilney, John


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maude, Angus
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Medlicott, Brig. F,
Turner, H F. L.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mellor, Sir John
Turton, R. H.


Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vosper, D. F.


Harvey, Air Cdr A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hay, John
Nicholls, Harmar
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Heath, Edward
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemonth, E.)
Waterhouse, Capt Rt Hon. C


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Watkinson, H. A


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nutting, Anthony
Wellwood, W.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. O.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hollis, M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Holmes. Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wills, G.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O
Wood, Hon. R


Horobin, I. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.
York, G.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peyton, J. W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. N.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)






NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Beswick, F.
Callaghan, L. J.


Adams, Richard
Bing, G. H. C.
Carmichael, J.


Albu, A H.
Blackburn, F.
Chapman, W. D.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blenkihsop, A.
Chetwynd, G. R


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, W. R.
Clunie, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Boardman, H.
Coldrick, W.


Awberry, S. S.
BowJen, H. W.
Collick, P H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowen, E. R.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Baird. J.
Bowles, F G
Cove, W. G


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brockway, A. F.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Bartley, P.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bence, C. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. O.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Benn, Wedgwood
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Benson, G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)







Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones. David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Deer, G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W
Short, E. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
Kenyon, C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
King, Dr H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edelman, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, W. J (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGovern, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Ewart, R
McLeavy, F.
Steele, T.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Strachey, Rt Hon. J


Finch. H. J
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington. E.)
Mainwaring, W H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G O


Forman. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P
Taylor, Rt. Hon, Robert (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Meltish, R. J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibson, C. W.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Glanville, James
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morley, R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Griffiths David (Rother Valley)
Malley, F. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Nally, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Viant, S. P


Grimond, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T
West, D G.


Hamilton, W. W.
Padloy, W. E
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Wheeldon, W E.


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs Eirene (E. Flint)


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Palmer, A M. F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles
Wigg, George


Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group Cant C. A. B


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Wilkins, W A


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holt. A. F.
Porter, G.
Williams, W. R (Droylsden)


Houghton, Douglas
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W T (Hammersmith. S.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershlre, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hynd, H (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.
Wyatt, W L.


Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Yates, V F


Irving, W. J (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.



Janner, B
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hon. D P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wallace.


Jeger. George (Goole)




Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION FACILITIES, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Herbert Butcher.]

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My aim is to secure television for the North of Scotland. The rest of this island has television, but not the North of Scotland. Why should it be penalised and ostracised in this way? I protest and seek to eliminate the present Government's bias against the North of Scotland. They treat the North of Scotland as a foreign country and Scots as foreigners.
This bias is evident in many phases of Scottish life—for instance, in the road and rail services, in Prestwick Airport, in freight charges, in the matter of the Forth and Tay Bridges and many other questions with which I am not concerned tonight. In order to obviate this debate I have asked Ministers many Questions on the subject. I have written to the Postmaster-General to have it attended to at his Departmental level. I have actually written to the Prime Minister and asked him to have it raised to a national level. I did all this without getting the service for Aberdeen and the North of Scotland which that area deserves.
It is only fair to say that the Assistant Postmaster-General has given me facts and figures, but he has not given me the television service which I seek. The facts and figures which I shall quote show that this is unfair discrimination. I shall contrast the treatment of Britain as a whole with the treatment of the North of Scotland. This point is well made by the distinguished Professor A. C. Turner in a recent book on Scottish matters, when he says that there is
a widespread feeling that Scotland does not get from the Government or from many agencies and authorities dealing with Britain as a whole, the individual treatment which it believes it deserves.
"The Times" which, of course, is not a Scottish newspaper, very fairly devoted a first leading article to this subject last December. In the course of that article it said:
For a few the sources of their national sentiment may be `a regret at lost independence' but for most it is mainly the irritation of

numerous particular grievances—about Prestwick airport, about the Forth and Tay road bridges, about the inadequate roads and ferries in the Western Highlands and so on. There is, indeed, much justification for these grievances and for the general complaint that Scottish interests and claims are too often given too little attention.
I mention that for the purpose of showing that I am slot alone in the case which I seek to put forward in the few minutes at my disposal.
Tonight I am concerned with television, with the Government television negations and tergiversations which constitute an almost incredible discrimination imposing an education and social penalty on parts of Scotland that need television most—parts which the Assistant Postmaster-General has contemptuously referred to as "fringe areas."
I ask the Government to discard this bias and injustice, to rise to far nobler heights and to provide for the North of Scotland, for the Highlands and the Islands a television service at least equal to that enjoyed by England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I ask the Government to cease treating the Scots as foreigners and give them rights, privileges, and amenities at least equal to those enjoyed by the citizens of other parts of this island.
Let us for a moment contrast the position of Scotland with Britain as a whole. Practically the whole of Britain, except Northern Scotland—

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Except the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Hughes: —has television. At the end of December, 1952, there had been issued no fewer than 1,892,832 television licences for the whole island, and to the end of the last financial year, that is, 31st March, 1952, this cost the nation £3,349,664. Contrast this with the treatment of Scotland, which falls into two classes for this matter; those portions served with television, and those which are not.
Those who are fortunate enough to be served are served by the Kirk o'Shotts station, which covers the whole of Stirling, Clackmannan, Kinross, Fife, Dunbarton, Renfrew, Lanarkshire, East and West Lothian and Midlothian, and Peebles, and substantial parts of Angus, Perth, Ayr, and Berwick. The total population of these areas, according to the 1951 Census,


was 4,022,000, and in that figure is comprised 38,000 television viewers at a moderate cost compared with the cost for the rest of the island. On the other hand, the North of Scotland is not served at all. Counties which are not served by the Kirk o'Shotts station, or any other station, are Aberdeen, Caithness, Dumfries, Sutherland, Kirkcudbright, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Bute, Nairn, Moray, Banff, Argyll, Kincardine, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Wigtown, Orkney, and Shetland.
In all these areas, according to the 1951 Census, there are 1,074,000 people, and that means that one-fifth of the population of Scotland is not served at all. A very large proportion of these people are potential viewers because of their secluded and scattered homes, and because of the nature of their social life and the absence of, or shortage of, the urban counter attractions. Indeed, the number of television licences issued emphasises this. In the areas served by the Kirk o'Shotts station, 9.5 television licences were issued per thousand of the population during the short period of nine months after the service became available; while 72.5 licences per thousand of the population were issued 6½ years after the Alexandra Palace service started.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the number of television viewers, in proportion, would be higher in the Highlands and Islands where there are not these counter attractions, than in the larger, more densely populated, urban areas. The present position has several invidious features.
Practically the whole of Britain and Northern Ireland are fully served by television stations at Alexandra Palace, Pontop Pike, Belfast and Kirk o'Shotts, while comparatively small areas such as the North of Scotland, the Isle of Wight, Plymouth, and Cornwall are not served at all. The hardship and unfairness of this are emphasised by the fact that the B.B.C. are actually providing a link between London and Dover to enable foreign countries in Europe to view the Coronation. Why should foreigners be facilitated in this way at the cost of the British taxpayer when Scotsmen are not? Nothing is provided for Aberdeen or the Highlands and Islands whose inhabitants pay British taxes and hold British passports. Why should the British Government treat

them with less consideration than foreigners?
What are the reasons for this disgraceful antagonism to the Scots who are good citizens, who are called up for National Service, who fight in the British Navy, Army, and Air Force and help to win British battles, and who indeed govern British colonies? Two reasons have been suggested—cost and labour—but neither of them real nor persuasive. The cost has no weight because money is now being spent on a booster station far Brighton which already has a television service. Money is being spent on the link between London and Dover to enable foreigners to see the Coronation. The argument about labour is not persuasive either, because the television instruments are very largely produced by unskilled female labour and does not compete with skilled labour required for defence. Further, it should be remembered that the money spent on the production of television instruments would not be money thrown away. It would be an investment for the nation educationally, and also with a return in the form of licences.
What are the real reasons for this racial discrimination against Scotland. On 29th January I asked the Assistant Postmaster-General this question:
What are the objections of the Government to providing either a television station or even a booster to the areas of Scotland which are not served by Kirk o'Shotts?
His reply dated 5th February stated that
there are no technical objections to providing a station for Aberdeen and the surrounding districts,
and he referred me to a statement made by him in the House on 8th December, 1952, in which he said that:
…it would not be in the national interest at a time when important industrial investment is still severely limited on account of our defence and export effort to devote more economic resources to the construction of new stations and still more to the manufacture of the receivers which the opening up of these new services would demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1952; Vol. 509. col. 39.]
The House will agree that it is most disingenuous, unpatriotic, and unfair to apply these considerations to 1–50th of the population of Britain and not to the other 49–50th. It is unfair to treat the Scots as foreigners. On 29th January I again asked the Assistant Postmaster-


General what it would cost to overcome the Government's objections to serve the North of Scotland. His answer, given on 5th February after consideration was:
the overcoming of the objections rests not upon cost, but on an improvement in the national situation. The cost of providing even a temporary and makeshift service for Aberdeen would be some £60,000; a permanent station giving a wider coverage would cost some £200,000 for the B.B.C. station alone.
This, again, is disingenuous and unfair. It is unfair to deny the North of Scotland a station at a cost of so trivial a sum as £200,000 compared with the vast sums which are spent on television for the inhabitants of this island as a whole—millions of pounds for the rest of Britain on a booster service for Brighton, which is already served, on a service for Northern Ireland, which is not part of this island at all, and on helping the foreigner. It should be remembered that this £200,000 is capital expenditure. It is not a gift, but it would be a remunerative investment for the Government.
The Government's contumacity on this matter conflicts with their professed policy to re-populate the Highlands and Islands, to which they are now denying amenities enjoyed by citizens in other parts of this Island. It may well be that the Government have some secret reason for penalising the North of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands in this way. If that is so, it is their duty to this nation to disclose it and to keep it a secret no longer. But I hope that the Government have no such secret reason, and hope that they will change their minds and that they will give to the North of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands the television which they deserve.

10.56 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) who opened this very short debate and who represents one half of the city of Aberdeen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who represents the other half, on the persistence with which they have pursued this matter. No Members could have represented with greater vigour and keenness the desire of their constituents to see the Coronation on television.
I wish that I were in the position tonight to say that Aberdeen will have television in time for the Coronation, but, as I have explained in my general statement on 8th December last and in answer to a number of Parliamentary Questions both by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Lady, that will not be possible, much as I regret to have to give this unpopular information. But I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North that it was not the present Government but the previous one which felt compelled to hold up the five low-powered stations, of which that at Aberdeen was one.
They did it—I think quite rightly—because they felt at the time that our economic position was so strained, very largely on account of re-armament and defence, that they were not justified in devoting skilled manpower, raw materials and the resources necessary for the construction of television stations, and also, I imagine, because they did not feel that it was right to devote these raw materials and skilled labour to the construction of the television sets which these new stations would require.
The present Government have felt able to modify that policy by allowing the B.B.C. to put up temporary stations for the North East coast at Pontop Pike and for Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North takes the view that if any exceptions are to be made they should be made for Aberdeen. That is only natural. I would tell him, therefore, why these two places have been chosen.

Mr. William Ross: Is plant being removed from Scotland in order to do this?

Mr. Gammans: No. I have dealt with stand-by equipment before, and if the hon. Member will look up the Questions and answers he will see that no plant is being taken from Scotland.
It was because we have on the North-East coast the largest concentration of population not already covered by the five stations and because, in addition, this area has had for a very long time the disadvantage of having to share the same wavelength with Northern Ireland on the Home Service sound programme. The choice of Northern Ireland for the second station was obvious because Northern Ireland was the only part of the United


Kingdom not covered by television at all. There was one other factor, a technical one, which led us to allow the B.B.C. to erect a station at Pontop Pike and which does not apply to Aberdeen. It was that the television link with Scotland already passed through Pontop Pike and it was comparatively cheap to link up the television service in that part of the country.
I want to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman that the North-East coast of Scotland, and Scotland generally, are not being unfairly treated. I would tell him that the estimated populations which the five low-power stations will cover when finished will be, in the case of Pontop Pike, 2½ million, Belfast, 1 million, the Isle of Wight, 2.2 million, Plymouth, 900,000 and Aberdeen, at the bottom of the list, only 400,000. I would remind him of the position of Scotland generally, and I believe I should satisfy him that that country as a whole is not being unfairly treated.
The Kirk o'Shotts station, which opened last March, serves 80 per cent. of the population of Scotland, which is roughly the same percentage as the whole country. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that one person in five in Scotland could not see television, but that is equally true everywhere—in East Anglia, and in the South and the West of England. It is a rather curious point about Kirk o'Shotts, and a little disappointing, that television does not seem to be as popular in Scotland as we had hoped. Although that station has been running for nearly a year there are only 38,000 licences. This compares unfavourably with the Wenvoe station in South Wales, which also serves South-West England, which has been running for over six months, and where there are already 61,000 licences. To give those figures in another form: the number of licences per 1,000 of population in Scotland is only 9.5. In the case of Wenvoe, which has been running a shorter time, it is 13.5. For Holme Moss, which has been running only a few months more than Kirk o'Shotts, it is four times as many as in Scotland, with 34.8 per thousand. I do not know what the explanation is.

Mr. John Taylor: All-English programmes.

Mr. Gammans: It may be that television does not make an appeal to the people of Scotland. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can give the explanation.
He asked me why temporary makeshift arrangements, which could not be made for Aberdeen, can be made for Brighton. The position for television reception is quite different in the two places. Brighton is already within the range of Alexandra Palace, and four and a half thousand licences have been taken out there. In the case of Aberdeen the number is about 40. Also, we should have to open up an entirely new area, which would be contrary to the principles which underlie Government policy which I set out in the House in the statement to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. There is a technical reason, too. All that is required for Brighton is a comparatively inexpensive booster to improve the existing service, but a booster by itself would be of no use in Aberdeen, which would need a completely new plant and one or two relay stations, as well.
One part of the argument which I used to defend Government policy has been challenged, not only in this House but technically. I said that the Government were trying to avoid incurring capital expenditure on stations and on the manpower and raw materials which would be required for the receiving sets which these stations would bring into operation. I have heard it suggested that the radio industry could easily carry these additional demands without in any way interfering with their re-armament programme and without causing an unnatural increase in production which, in the long run, would be the very worst thing for the radio industry. Any hon. Members who hold that view should read the daily papers, because there was an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" today, in the "Daily Mirror" on Monday, and in the "Evening News" last Friday, as follows:
If you want a television set in time for the Coronation now's the time to get one.… Why the hurry? … there will be neither enough sets to go round nor enough time to install the ones that are available.
That shows that the television industry itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "An advertisement."] If it is advertising, it is pretty poor advertising for an industry which says it could carry this additional burden.


They cannot have it both ways. Either the industry can provide the sets for these additional stations or they should not put such an advertisement in the papers. The last thing we want to do, for the sake of the industry itself, is to increase the demand to an unnatural extent.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry, my time is practically over.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend has made some accusations. Were those advertisements on behalf of one individual firm which may run out of stock by the Coronation, or were they advertisements for the whole industry?

Mr. Gammans: They were put in by two of the largest firms making radio sets.
The hon. and learned Member is terribly disappointed—and so would I be if I represented Aberdeen—that his constituents will not be able to see the television of the Coronation, but I would remind him that they will not be deprived of seeing the Coronation altogether. After all, it is being filmed in both black and white and also in colour and I imagine that those films will be seen in the cinemas of Aberdeen very soon after the ceremony.
I would not like the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Lady to think that what I have said tonight means that the provision of television for Aberdeen is being put off to some far distant date. All I am telling them is that, for the reasons I have stated, they will not get television in time for the Coronation, but I sincerely hope that our circumstances will be such that before very long it will be possible for the Government to allow the B.B.C. to complete their five low-power stations of which Aberdeen is one.

11.8 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Assistant Postmaster-General has made a most unsatisfactory statement. He has merely repeated every argument ever given from the Government benches since the subject has been raised and has

said nothing new. Of course, we quite realise that he is only the workshop for the Treasury, and it is up to him to get Treasury sanction. Whenever we approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either by letter or by Question, we always get these matters referred back to the Post Office. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we never get any satisfaction. It is absolutely up to my hon. Friend to show more energy, more realism, more imagination, more determination in trying to get this service, instead of coming here rather complacently and saying, "I am very sorry but you cannot have a service before the Coronation."
I question the figures he gave in answer to a Question which I put as to how much it would cost to erect a relay station in Aberdeen and at the same time for the Post Office to provide the necessary link. That Question was also put in relation to the Isle of Wight and Southampton. The reply was that the average cost was £200,000 each. Surely that is a very high figure, because that was quoted also for Northern Ireland and Newcastle and, when it was challenged, the figure came down to £20,000.
I want to know whether this is because of excessive building costs or whether it is the policy of the Department not to cover the whole of this country with television because they know that, if they do, they will then have to start granting competitive television lines.
I would say in conclusion that Aberdeen has regularly paid for sound licences for many years. Aberdeen has, therefore, subsidised the spread of television from London northwards. Since 1937 they have subsidised television and after 16 years it is just about time that they had a service of their own. Therefore, I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will go back to the Treasury and personally ask for their support.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Ten Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.